alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 275 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 275

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 19, 1993.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report and amendments reported from conference in 
disagreement on the bill (H.R. 2491) making appropriations for the Departments 
of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry 
independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against the conference report are waived. The conference report, 
amendments in disagreement, and motions printed in the joint explanatory 
statement of the committee of conference to dispose of amendments in 
disagreement shall be considered as read. It shall be in order, any rule of the 
House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider a motion offered by 
Representative Stokes of Ohio or a designee that the House recede from its 
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 113 and concur therein with 
the amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution. That motion shall be 
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on that motion to 
final adoption without intervening motion.
    Sec. 2. The amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered 
113 is as follows:
    In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert: ``: Provided 
further, That, pursuant to Public Law 102-486, an amount equal to not more than 
50 percent of all utility energy efficiency and water conservation cash rebates 
received by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration may be made 
available for additional energy efficiency and water conservation measures, 
including facility surveys: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in 
this Act to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be available 
for other than termination costs of the advanced solid rocket motor program.
    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the amounts appropriated 
in this Act for fiscal year 1994 shall be: $4,853,500,000 for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration `Space flight, control and data 
communications', $517,700,000 for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration `Construction of facilities', $7,529,300,000 for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration `Research and development', $1,480,853,000 
for the Environmental Protection Agency `Hazardous substance superfund', 
$1,998,500,000 for the National Science Foundation `Research and related 
activities', and $110,000,000 for the National Science Foundation `Academic 
research infrastructure'''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Third Court ofAppeals

209 W 14th Street

Austin, Tx 78701

Leta Chandler

311 Las Cruces

Buda,Tx 78610

January 21,2014

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing this letter in regards to my father Bryan Chandler, case number 03-14-547CR

Ms. Peach is not our appellate attorney, she was our trial attorney. I am in the process of hiring

an appellate attorney now. I am asking for an extension at this time.

Please keep my information on file until another attorney is hired.

Leta Chandler

311 Las Cruces

Buda,Tx 78610

letachandler@gmail.com

Sincerely,

Leta Chandler
riMMWim*

7Dm E1ED DDDl b73D HH77

rVst\^

UNITEDSTaTSS

POSTAL SERVICE.

1000

78701

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

BUDA.TX

78610

JAN 23, 15

AMOUNT

$6.49

00103612-08

|ili»lilliMlaHiili«l«l,*»ll*1,*liilll»i,fl1ilil«!ilill*hi,lll
No. 10973.

#### Pugh, Treasurer, *v.*Doelker.

Decided November 24, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. George S. Marshall,*city solicitor, and *Mr. John L. Davies,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Kinkead, Sheets & West,*for defendant in error.

Former judgment adhered to.

Price, C. J., Shaucic, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF DICTAPHONE CORPORATION AT SEPTEMBER 30,
1997, AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,717
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,035
<INVENTORY>                                     44,223
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,918
<PP&E>                                          64,588
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 490,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,855
<BONDS>                                        363,211
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           20,136
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            95
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   490,345
<SALES>                                        148,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               248,824
<CGS>                                          104,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  267,759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (50,702)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,765
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,937)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,937)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.70)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021053EN.01006201.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/62

---

Action brought on 21 December 2020 — Nissan Motor v EUIPO — VDL Groep (VDL E-POWERED)

(Case T-756/20)

(2021/C 53/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd (Yokohama-shi, Japan) (represented by: P. Martini-Berthon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VDL Groep BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark VDL E-POWERED — Application for registration No 17 895 699

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2020 in Case R 2915/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the present applicant for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the present applicant for annulment;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2022002EN.01001301.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/13

---

Appeal brought on 7 July 2021 by Comercializadora Eloro S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2021 in Case T-310/20, Comercializadora Eloro v EUIPO — Zumex Group (JUMEX)

(Case C-415/21 P)

(2022/C 2/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Comercializadora Eloro S.A. (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero, P. Merino Baylos and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Zumex Group, S.A.

By order of 10 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered Comercializadora Eloro, S.A. to bear its own costs.

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

d0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

137063

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137063 COA: 275207 Oakland CC: 2006-208247-FH KEONTA JERMAIN GILES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Adam SAKOWSKI, trading and doing business as “R & S News Center” and as “Florida News Center” and as Quantity of Magazines & Films, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-221.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 16, 1972.

Joseph S. Farley, Jr., of Mahon & Ma-hon, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from a temporary restraining order against appellant prohibiting the sale of certain publications or the showing of certain films alleged to be obscene.

We have carefully read the record and briefs and heard oral argument of counsel for both parties, and from our consideration thereof we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the order appealed from should be and is affirmed, and the interlocutory appeal is dismissed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
# C_2023252EN.01004201.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Rubnikovich v Council

(Case T-582/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources to which the freezing of funds and economic resources and the ban on entry into or transit through European Union territory applies - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Collective nature of a sanction - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2023/C 252/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Siarhei Rubnikovich (Tarasovo, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Limonet and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 70), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 221/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219 I, p. 3), to the extent that those two acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Siarhei Rubnikovich to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Siarhei Rubnikovich to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1239

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on theobromine.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 15 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. CHAFEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on

theobromine.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. THEOBROMINE.

4 Heading 9902.31.01 of subchapter II of chapter 99

5 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

6 is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/

7 31/94’’.

8 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by this Act

10 applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from
2

•S 1239 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

3 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—Notwithstanding section 514

4 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law,

5 upon proper request filed with the appropriate customs of6 ficer on or before the 90th day after the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, any entry of an article described in sub8 heading 9902.31.01 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

9 the United States that was made—

10 (1) after December 31, 1992, and

11 (2) before the date which is 15 days after the

12 date of the enactment of this Act,

13 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry

14 occurred on or after the date that is 15 days after the

15 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14883]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-894 (Third Review)]


Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine; Termination of Five-Year Review

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission instituted the subject five-year review in May 
2018 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on 
Ammonium Nitrate from Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation 
or recurrence of material injury. On June 18, 2018, the Department of 
Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order effective June 
12, 2018, because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent 
to participate. Accordingly, the subject review is terminated.

DATES: June 29, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Jones (202-205-3358), Office 
of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street 
SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that 
information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the 
Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility 
impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the 
Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. 
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by 
accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov).
    Authority: This review is being terminated under authority of title 
VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 and pursuant to section 751(c) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). This notice is published 
pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.69).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 6, 2018.
Jessica Mullan,
Attorney-Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2018-14883 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
### Filed 2/21/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2019 ND40 ___ State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v. Jeffery Allen Christie, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20180286 Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Centra l Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Marina Spahr , Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee. Laura C. Ringsak , Bismarck, N.D., for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.State v. Christie No. 20180286
Per Curiam. [¶1] Jeffery Christie appeals from a criminal judgment entered o n a jury verdict finding him guilty of class AA felony gross sexual imposition. Christie argues the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s guilty v erdict. Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and giv ing the verdict the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, see State v. White , 2017 ND 51, ¶ 17 , 890 N.W.2d 825, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to sus tain the verdict. We summarily affirm the criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3)
. [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jon J. Jensen

1
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 118

To require the Commodity Credit Corporation to refund to first processors

of sugarcane and sugar beets marketing assessments collected by the

Corporation during fiscal year 1991, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To require the Commodity Credit Corporation to refund to

first processors of sugarcane and sugar beets marketing

assessments collected by the Corporation during fiscal

year 1991, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REFUND OF SUGAR MARKETING ASSESSMENTS

4 COLLECTED DURING FISCAL YEAR 1991.

5 Notwithstanding section 206(i) of the Agricultural

6 Act of 1949 (as added by section 1105(c) of the Omnibus

7 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–

8 508)), the Commodity Credit Corporation shall refund to
2

•S 118 IS

1 first processors of sugarcane and sugar beets marketing

2 assessments collected by the Corporation from the proc3 essors in accordance with such section 206(i) during the

4 period beginning July 1, 1991, and ending September 30,

5 1991.

Æ
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Preferred Voice, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. Schereck, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/  William J. SchereckWilliam J. Schereck Principal Executive Officer November 13, 2002
# C_2023164EN.01000801.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Towercast v Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre chargé de l’économie

(Case C-449/21, (1) Towercast)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Control of concentrations between undertakings - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Article 21(1) - Exclusive application of that regulation to operations covered by the concept of ‘concentration’ - Scope - Concentration operation which has no Community dimension, is below the thresholds for mandatory ex ante control laid down in the law of a Member State and has not been referred to the European Commission - Control of such an operation by the competition authorities of that Member State in the light of Article 102 TFEU - Whether permissible)

(2023/C 164/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Towercast SASU

Defendants: Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre chargé de l’économie

Other parties: Tivana Topco SA, Tivana Midco SARL, TDF Infrastructure Holding SAS, TDF Infrastructure SAS, Tivana France Holdings SAS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings

must be interpreted as not precluding the competition authority of a Member State from regarding a concentration of undertakings which has no Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1 thereof, is below the thresholds for mandatory ex ante control laid down in national law, and has not been referred to the European Commission under Article 22 of that regulation, as constituting an abuse of a dominant position prohibited under Article 102 TFEU, in the light of the structure of competition on a market which is national in scope.

---

(1)  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

---