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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1271 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1271

 To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Housing Act of 
1959 to exclude from consideration as income rebates granted under New 
   Jersey law for the payment of State property taxes on homesteads.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 21 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

 Mr. Lautenberg (for himself and Mr. Bradley) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, 
                       Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Housing Act of 
1959 to exclude from consideration as income rebates granted under New 
   Jersey law for the payment of State property taxes on homesteads.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Homestead Rebate Exemption Act of 
1993''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF PROPERTY TAX REBATES FROM INCOME.

    (a) Amendment to the United States Housing Act of 1937.--Section 
3(b)(5) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
1437a(b)(5)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(H) any amounts received after January 1, 1993, 
                by the family in the form of a rebate for property 
                taxes paid on a homestead or paid through rent on a 
                homestead under the New Jersey `Homestead Property Tax 
                Rebate Act of 1990' (N.J.S.A., c. 54:4--8.57 to 54:4--
                8.66), or any successor provision.''.
    (b) Amendment to the Housing Act of 1959.--Section 202(c)(3) of the 
Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q(c)(3)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following: ``The term `monthly income' does not include any 
amounts received after January 1, 1993, by the person in the form of a 
rebate for property taxes paid on a homestead or paid through rent on a 
homestead under the New Jersey `Homestead Property Tax Rebate Act of 
1990' (N.J.S.A., c. 54:4--8.57 to 54:4--8.66), or any successor 
provision.''.

                                 <all>
```
Attachment 003 – Process – TS 11CM04

Page 1 of 1 

# SANITIZED
# Commissioning

To assure a high standard of excellence for the American public, GSA utilizes Total Building Commissioning when serving the space requirements of Federal agencies. Total Building Commissioning is PBS’s process of ensuring quality delivery of building functionality in new construction and major modernizations. It validates and documents that the performance of the total building and its systems meet the design intent and requirements of the owner. Ultimately, Total Building Commissions helps GSA achieve its intents and requirements and fulfill its duty to both customer agencies and the American taxpayer.

 

The GSA Commissioning Guide provides the overall framework for commissioning, from project planning through tenant occupancy. Further, it describes the mechanics of the commissioning process, by identifying the participation of each team member and other keys to success in each step along the way. While recognizing that every project is unique and that required activities will vary, this guide describes recommendations, minimum requirements, and best practices based upon industry guidance and GSA experience. Applying the GSA Commissioning Guide completely to projects not only addresses the facility needs of customer agencies, but also ensures national consistency in PBS practice.

2020 GSA Commissioning Guide [PDF - 1 MB]

 

 

****

 

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Commissioning
#### Wilton BUTLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-169.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 16, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and W. C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s right to properly file a motion under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850 to vacate his sentence on the grounds that his sentence was enhanced by convictions in cases in which appellant was denied his right to counsel.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                         REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
COMC, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of COMC, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the related consolidated statements
of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
two years then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of COMC,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the consolidated results of
their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the two years
then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


                                             /s/ Hollander, Lumar & Co. LLP

                                                 HOLLANDER, LUMAR & CO. LLP


Los Angeles, California
February 26, 1999
No. 00-1058.

#### Jaderany *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         445,195
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             125
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               250,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  8,215,044
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,694,937
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,715,532
<LOANS>                                     31,082,006
<ALLOWANCE>                                    321,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,548,593
<DEPOSITS>                                  28,852,700
<SHORT-TERM>                                 7,615,653
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,104,526
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,358,933
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    165,000
<COMMON>                                       137,431
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,314,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              43,548,593
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,873,747
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              543,117
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                36,324
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,453,188
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             886,293
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,389,378
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,063,810
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  123,071
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (7,819)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                956,574
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                181,090
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     110,690
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   110,690
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.21
<LOANS-NON>                                    526,177
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                93,161
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               362,849
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  177,980
<RECOVERIES>                                    13,690
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              321,630
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           321,630
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-1693WM

_____________ Danny Croman, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States City of Kansas City, Missouri; * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Defendant-Appellee, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Valissa Smith, Reporter, KCTV * Channel 5; Anne Peterson, Anchor, * KCTV, Channel 5, * * Defendants. *

_____________ Submitted: November 2, 1998

Filed: November 9, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Danny Croman appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in Croman 's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court's judgment was correct and no useful-2-

purpose wi ll be served by an extended discussion. We affirm substantially for th e reasons stated by the district court. See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 9, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00390-CV No. 05-14-00391-CV IN RE SENRICK WILKERSON, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-01183-J, F10-01184-J 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGera ld, Francis, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Francis Relator files a motion seeking summary judgment. He complains of false imprisonment based on alleged inaccuracies in his Dallas county arrest records and purported procedural errors with relation to his arrests a nd convictions. The Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure do not permit this Court to grant summary judgment in th is case. Moreover, this Court may not address complaints of the type relator raises, regard less of the form in which they are couched. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 1991) (“What the court of appeals tried to do was treat the original mandamus petition as a writ of habeas corpus. We are the only court with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.”). While the courts of appeals have concurrent mandamus jurisdiction with the Court of Crim inal Appeals in some post-conviction proceedings, Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)–2– (forensic DNA testing), only the Co urt of Criminal Appeals has ju risdiction in cases collaterally attacking a final judgment of conviction of a felony. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2010); In re Turk , No. 14-09-00129-CR, 2009 WL 396197, at *1 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Bailey, No. 14-06-00841-CV, 2006 WL 2827249, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 st Dist.] 2001, or ig. proceeding). “Article 11.07 contains no role fo r the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and the Cour t of Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d at 718. The nature of relator’s complaint is that he has is being illegally confined due to the defects he alleges. This C ourt does not have jurisdiction ove r any matters related to such complaints; they must be raised with the Cour t of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the petition.

140390F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
252 La. 102

#### Gurvls A. RYDER v. BACO REALTY, INC., et al.

No. 49197.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1968.

In re: Baco Realty, Inc., applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 207 So.2d 155.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
#### Walter OSTMAN, Appellant, v. Howard M. LAWN, and Parkmobile, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 73-1446.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, .Third District.

March 14, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Terry V. BILLS, Jr. v. Hillward J. FRUGE.

No. 62742.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Terry V. Bills, Jr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of St. Landry. 360-So.2d 661.

Writ denied.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., would grant the writ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 122 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 122

   To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Kalena.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel Kalena.

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

SECTION 1. DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation for the vessel Kalena, United States official number HA-
1923E.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Habersham Bancorp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-64149, 33-61587, 33-61589, and 333-48507 on Forms S-8 and Registration
Statement No. 333-18023 on Form S-3 of Habersham Bancorp of our report dated
February 1, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Habersham
Bancorp and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and comprehensive
income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report
on Form 10-K of Habersham Bancorp.



                                       /s/ KPMG LLP
                                       ------------
                                       KPMG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 27, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET FOR MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTH
PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       6,780,883
<SECURITIES>                                 5,371,881
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,351,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,158,329
<INVENTORY>                                    692,117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,164,099
<PP&E>                                      16,265,160
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,292,041
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,466,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,540,519
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       109,680
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,467,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,466,082
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,040,557
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,376,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,121,338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,033,629
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 268
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                656,613
<INCOME-TAX>                                   249,520
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            407,093
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   407,093
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
# C_2023063EN.01005001.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/50

---

Order of the General Court of 16 December 2022 — EMS v EUIPO (AIRFLOW)

(Case T-751/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark AIRFLOW - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 63/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EMS Electro Medical Systems GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Scheib and C. Schulte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and E. Nicolás Gómez, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 September 2021 (Case R 546/2021-4).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | EMS Electro Medical Systems GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EMS Electro Medical Systems GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---
April 7, 20

 

Mr. Wren

United Sta

Region 6 

1445 Ross

Dallas, TX

Re: C

V

V

C

Dear Mr. 

This lette

selection 

applicatio

applicatio

If you ha

contact m

email at m

Sincerely,

Mona Cae

cc: 

Matt Lind

014 

n Stenger 

ates Environm

s Avenue, Sui

X 75202-2733 

onsolidated A

ictoria Power

ictoria, Victor

N602656548;

Stenger, 

er is provide

of the GHG P

on. Victoria 

on. 

ve any quest

me via email 

mlindsey@cam

esar Johnson,

dsey- CAMS, D

 

mental Protec

 

te 1200 

Asset Manage

r Station 

ria County 

; RN1002149

d in respons

PSD permittin

WLE, LP ele

tions or need

at mjohnson@

mstex.com. 

, P.E. 

Director of Re

919 

Hous

Ph 

Fax 7

ction Agency

ement Service

80 

se to your c

ng authority 

ects to have

d additional 

@camsespar

egulatory Com

Milam Street, Su

ston, TX 77002

713.358.9700 

713.751.0392 

es (Victoria W

corresponden

for the pend

EPA remain

information 

c.com or con

mpliance 

uite 2300 

FedEX Tra

WLE) 

nce dated M

ing Victoria P

n the permit

please call m

ntact Matt Lin

acking No. 79

March 27, 20

Power Station

tting authorit

me at (281) 

ndsey at (713

984 6980 957

14 related t

n GHG PSD p

ty for this p

333-3339 x2

3) 357-9734 

1 

o the 

permit 

permit 

201 or 

or via
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1164

To amend section 2119 of title 18, United States Code, to authorize imposition of the death penalty if death results from a carjacking, and for

other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 25 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

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

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 2119 of title 18, United States Code,

to authorize imposition of the death penalty if death

results from a carjacking, 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. FEDERAL PENALTIES FOR AUTOMOBILE ROB4 BERY.

5 Section 2119 of title 18, United States Code, is

6 amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, ‘covered motor

8 vehicle’ means a motor vehicle that has been transported,

9 shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce.
2

•S 1164 IS

1 ‘‘(b) OFFENSES.—A person who, while in possession

2 of a firearm (as defined in section 921) or other weapon

3 or dangerous device—

4 ‘‘(1) intentionally strikes or otherwise makes

5 physical contact with a covered motor vehicle with a

6 motor vehicle operated by the person, with any other

7 thing, or with any part of the person’s body, in one

8 of the circumstances described in subsection (c); or

9 ‘‘(2) takes a covered motor vehicle from the

10 person or presence of another by force and violence

11 or by intimidation, or attempts to do so,

12 shall be punished under subsection (d).

13 ‘‘(c) CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH OFFENSE OC14 CURS.—The circumstances referred to in subsection (b)(1)

15 are that—

16 ‘‘(1) the person makes the contact with the in17 tent to injure an occupant of the motor vehicle or to

18 take or cause damage to the motor vehicle or any19 thing in the motor vehicle; or

20 ‘‘(2) in the course of events immediately follow21 ing the contact, an occupant of the motor vehicle is

22 injured or the motor vehicle or anything in it is

23 taken or damaged.

24 ‘‘(d) PENALTIES.—A person who violates subsection

25 (b) shall—
3

•S 1164 IS

1 ‘‘(1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not

2 more than 15 years, or both;

3 ‘‘(2) if serious bodily injury (as defined in sec4 tion 1365) results, be fined under this title or im5 prisoned not more than 25 years, or both; and

6 ‘‘(3) if death results, be fined under this title

7 or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or

8 both, or sentenced to death.’’.

Æ