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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1192 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1192

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to release restrictions on 
 the use of certain property conveyed to the city of Soldotna, Alaska, 
                         for airport purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 1 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

 Mr. Stevens (for himself and Mr. Murkowski) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to release restrictions on 
 the use of certain property conveyed to the city of Soldotna, Alaska, 
                         for airport purposes.

    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 ``Soldotna Airport Improvement Act of 
1993''.

SEC. 2. RELEASE.

    Notwithstanding section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (as in effect 
on December 12, 1963), the Secretary of Transportation is authorized, 
subject to the provisions of section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 
(50 App. U.S.C. 1622c), and the provisions of section 3 of this Act, to 
grant releases from any of the terms, conditions, reservations, and 
restrictions contained in the deed of conveyance dated December 12, 
1963, under which the United States conveyed certain property to the 
city of Soldotna, Alaska, for airport purposes.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS.

    (a) Any release granted by the Secretary of Transportation under 
section 2 of this Act shall be subject to the following conditions:
            (1) The city of Soldotna, Alaska, shall agree that, in 
        conveying any interest in the property which the United States 
        conveyed to the city by deed dated December 12, 1963, the city 
        will receive an amount for such interest which is equal to the 
        fair market value (as determined pursuant to regulations issued 
        by the Secretary of Transportation).
            (2) Any such amount so received by the city shall be used 
        by the city for the development, improvement, operation, or 
        maintenance of a public airport.

                                 <all>
```
#### AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT INC. v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY.

No. 38507.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 219 So.2d 101.
#### Sadonia HUTCHINSON and Thomas G. Hutchinson v. Gloria Marshall SALON and J. Mistretta.

No. 53932.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: Sadonia Hutchinson and Thomas G. Hutchinson applying for writ of review or certiorari.

Writ refused. Considering the report of plaintiff’s counsel that he has already received the major documents requested, plaintiffs are entitled to no further relief on the showing made.
#### Donald COLLINS, Appellant, v. June COLLINS, Appellee.

No. 69-836.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 8, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stewart F. LaMotte, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023134EN.01001002.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 — Worldwide Brands v EUIPO — Wan (CAMEL)

(Case T-552/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark CAMEL - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - No assessment of some of the evidence submitted)

(2023/C 134/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero, R. Ahijón Lana and B. Tomás Acosta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Eric Guangyu Wan (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: V. Piccarreta and G. Romanelli, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 1548/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 1548/2020-1) in so far as it maintained the registration of the EU trade mark in respect of ‘shirts’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2021 (Case R 1548/2020-1) in so far as it maintained the registration of the EU trade mark in respect of ‘shirts’;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland in the course of the proceedings before the Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland in the course of the proceedings before the Court;

| 3. | Orders Mr Eric Guangyu Wan to bear the costs he has incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Eric Guangyu Wan to bear the costs he has incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---
VI

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1174

For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

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

3 SECTION 1. GRANT OF NATURALIZATION TO OLGA D.

4 ZHONDETSKAYA.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, Olga D. Zhondetskaya shall be naturalized

7 as a citizen of the United States upon the filing of the

8 appropriate application and upon being administered the

9 oath of renunciation and allegiance in an appropriate cere10 mony pursuant to section 337 of the Immigration and Na11 tionality Act.
2

•S 1174 IS

1 (b) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

2 FEES.—Subsection (a) shall apply only if the application

3 for naturalization is filed with appropriate fees within 1

4 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

QUINN CRUZ, JR.,

 Appellant,

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-14-00058-CR

Appeal from the

205th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20060D00581)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until 

February 14, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime Esparza, the State’s Attorney, prepare the 

State’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 14, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5

th day of January, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT**  **FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA**  No. DA 24

- 0218 IN THE MATTER OF : H.M.H , A Youth In Need Of Care

. **ORDER** Upon consideration of the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record, and with good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Father and Appellant in this matter, H.M.H., shall file a response to this motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The response must be served upon all counsel of record, including the Attorney General, the Count y Attorney, and the Appellate Defender’s Office. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall give notice of this Order by mail to all counsel of record and to Father and appellant, H.M.H . at that person’s last known address.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 1 2024

08/01/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0218
-  HIPAA for Professionals 
-  Regulatory Initiatives 
-  Privacy      -  Summary of the Privacy Rule 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Combined Text of All Rules 
  -  HIPAA Related Links 
-  Security      -  Summary of the Security Rule 
  -  Security Guidance  
  -  Cyber Security Guidance 
-  Breach Notification      -  Breach Reporting 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  Regulation History 
-  Compliance & Enforcement      -  Enforcement Rule 
  -  Enforcement Process 
  -  Enforcement Data 
  -  Resolution Agreements 
  -  Case Examples 
  -  Audit 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  State Attorneys General 
-  Special Topics      -  HIPAA and Part 2 
  -  Change Healthcare Cybersecurity Incident FAQs 
  -  HIPAA and COVID-19 
  -  HIPAA and Reproductive Health        -  HIPAA and Final Rule Notice 
  -  HIPAA and Telehealth 
  -  HIPAA and FERPA 
  -  Research 
  -  Public Health 
  -  Emergency Response 
  -  Health Information Technology 
  -  Health Apps 
-  Patient Safety      -  Statute & Rule        -  PSQIA Statute 
    -  Patient Safety Rule 
  -  Enforcement 
  -  Guidance 
-  Covered Entities & Business Associates      -  Business Associate Contracts 
  -  Business Associates 
-  Training & Resources 
-  FAQs for Professionals 
-  Other Administrative Simplification Rules 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Jacob and Associates HIPAA Enforcement Action

Jacob and Associates, a psychiatric medical services provider with two office locations in California, agreed to take corrective actions and pay OCR $28,000 to settle potential violations of the HIPAA Privacy Rule, including provisions of the right of access standard.
                          - Read the HHS Press Release
                          - Read the Resolution Agreement and Corrective Action Plan *

* People using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in this file. For assistance, contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights at (800) 368-1019, TDD toll-free: (800) 537-7697, or by emailing OCRMail@hhs.gov.

Content last reviewed March 28, 2022
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Robert R. Galvin,  Chief  Financial  Officer of NuCO2 Inc., a
Florida  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby certify,  to his knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal  quarter  ended  September 30,
2007 of the Company (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,  and  the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                /s/ Robert R. Galvin
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Robert R. Galvin
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                November 9, 2007
```
#### Charles Friz, Respondent, *v.*George Pfaff and Anna Bruch, Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November, 1912.)

Municipal Court Act, § 146 — joinder of causes of action.

Actions — joinder of causes of — contract to convey.

Under section 146 of the Municipal Court Act it must appear that causes of action united in the same complaint affect all the parties to the action.

A cause of action against one defendant for breach of a contract to convey free of water rents and tenement house violations may not be united in the same complaint with a cause of action for breach of covenant in the deed of the premises delivered by said defendant and the other defendant, who was not a party to the contract to convey.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Few York, borough of Manhattan, sixth district, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

*122Frederic Leubuscher, for appellants.

Arthur D. Greenfield and Thomas G. Prioleau, for respondent.

Seabury, J.

Plaintiff has recovered a judgment against both defendants. The return shows that the plaintiff asserts a cause of action against the defendant Pfaff upon a contract, wherein Pfaff agreed to convey certain premises free of water rents and tenement house violations, and also that the plaintiff asserts a claim against the defendant Bruch and defendant Pfaff for the breach of a covenant contained in a deed delivered by both of these defendants to the plaintiff. The two causes of action upon which the plaintiff has recovered judgment against both defendants are entirely separate and distinct. The defendant Bruch was not a party to the agreement for the sale of the property, and cannot, therefore, be sued for a breach of its conditions. While both of the defendants signed the deed, for the breach of covenants on which the plaintiff also seeks a recovery, the rights of the plaintiff growing out of the alleged breach of covenant in the deed constituted a cause of action entirely distinct from the cause of action growing out of the alleged breach of the contract to sell. Where there is a joinder of causes of action, it must appear that all the causes of action affect all the parties to the action. Mun. Ct. Act, § 146. The defendants attempted to avail themselves of this objection in the court below, but the learned court held adversely to their contention.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Guy and Bijub, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.
COMMONWEALTHofVIRGINIADouglasW.DomenechSecretaryofNaturalResourcesDEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALQUALITYStreetaddress:629EastMainStreet,Richmond,Virginia23219Mailingaddress:P.O.Box1105,Richmond,Virginia23218TDD(804)698-4021www.deq.virginia.govDavidK.PaylorDirector(804)698-40001-800-592-5482SEP272010Ms.DianaEsher,DirectorAirProtectionDivision(3APOO)U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,RegionIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania19103-2029Reference:RECEIVEDSEP292010DV1SIODirector(3APOO)AmbientAirQualityStandards,Lead,RevisionA09DearMs.Esher:Pursuanttotherequirementsof§110oftheCleanAirAct,weareofficiallyrequestingapprovalofarevisiontotheCommonwealthofVirginiaStateImplementationPlanapprovedandsubmittedundertheauthorityof§10.1-1185oftheCodeofVirginiaandinaccordancewiththerequirementsof40CFRPart51(RequirementsforPreparation,Adoption,andSubmittalofImplementationPlans).Thisrevisionconsistsofaregulation(9VAC5Chapter30)thatcontainstheambientairqualitystandardssetoutin40CFRPart50.Thisactionaddedaleadstandardof1.5jig/rn2andrelatedreferenceconditions.Inaddition,thelistofappendicesto40CFRPart51wasupdatedunderdocumentsincorporatedbyreference,9VAC5-20-21.TheregulationamendmentswereadoptedbytheStateAirPollutionControlBoardonApril24,2009undertheauthorityof§10.1-1308oftheCodeofVirginia.Enclosedarethefollowing:1.Atruecopyoftheofficialregulation(RevisionA09)whichwaspublishedintheVirginiaRegisterofRegulationsonMay25,2009afterbeingdulyadoptedbytheStateAirPollutionControlBoardonApril24,2009,certifiedbytheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralaswithintheBoard’sstatutoryauthorityonApril24,2009,andCCCCthusfullyenforceableunderVirginialaw,andsubmittedtotheVirginiaRegistraronbehalfoftheboardbytheDepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityasatrueandaccuratecopyofthedulyadoptedregulationonMay4,2009,providingtheevidencerequiredbySection2.1(b)and(e)ofAppendixVof40CFRPart51.2.Certificationofpublicparticipationactivitiesandcompliancewithstateadministrativeprocedures.3.Publicparticipationrecord.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorneedadditionalinformation,pleaseletusknow.Sincely,DavidK.PaylorDKP\kgsTEMPLATES\SIP-REG\RE000SIP\NONATTNAREAS\201O\A09-SIP.DOCEnclosures
# C_2022284EN.01003301.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/33

---

Order of the General Court of 5 May 2022 — Fibrecycle v EUIPO — (BACK-2-NATURE)

(Case T-248/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fibrecycle Pty Ltd (Helensvale, Australia) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2021 (Case R 1699/2020-2), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark BACK-2-NATURE.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---
#### TAMIAMI HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, Florida, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-390.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 5, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 10.15(a)
​
Schedule identifying agreements substantially identical to
the form of Second Supplemental Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.15 hereto
​
Subscribed Capital of Beijing
Tongmei Xtal Technology Co., Ltd.
​
	​


	​


	​


	​


	​



	​
	​
	Purchase
	​
	​

	Investor
	    
	Price (RMB)
	    
	Capital %

	Liaoning Haitong New Energy Equity Investment (Limited Partnership)
	​
	11,840,774
	​
	1.3373%

	Liaoning Haitong New Energy Low-Carbon Industry Equity Investment Co., Ltd.
	​
	4,604,745
	​
	.5201%

	Haitong Innovation Securities Investment Co., Ltd.
	​
	13,156,415
	​
	1.4859%

	Fujian Province An Xin Industry Investment Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership)
	​
	8,942,416
	​
	1.01%

	Jinggangshan Meicheng Equity Investment Partnership (Limited Partnership)
	​
	5,961,172
	​
	.6733%

	Hefei Walden II IC Industry Investment Partnership (Limited Partnership)
	​
	6,955,797
	​
	.7856%

	Qingdao Xinxingyi Equity Investment Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership)
	​
	3,974,553
	​
	.4489%

	Qiji (Hangzhou) Investment Consulting Co., Ltd.
	​
	3,974,553
	​
	.4489%

	Gongqingcheng Yi Hua Tong Ze Investment Partnership (Limited Partnership)
	​
	1,766,907
	​
	.1996%

	Sunrise Baoying (Ningbo) Investment Center (Limited Partnership)
	​
	1,315,642
	​
	.1486%

	Xiamen He Yong Zhi Cheng Equity Investment Partnership (Limited Partnership)
	​
	860,468
	​
	.0972%

	Hangzhou Jingyue Technology Development Partnership (Limited Partnership)
	​
	993,611
	​
	.1122%



​
No. 00-1104.

#### Stephenson *v.*Raskas Dairy, Inc.

Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 21



Subsidiaries of The Sands Regent



|                              |  |                           |  |             
|----------------------------- |  | ------------------------- |  | ------------
|Name                          |  | Entity Type               |  | Jurisdiction
|Zante, Inc.                   |  | corporation               |  | Nevada      
|Last Chance, Inc.             |  | corporation               |  | Nevada      
|California Prospectors, Ltd.* |  | limited liability company |  | Nevada      
|Plantation Investments, Inc.  |  | corporation               |  | Nevada      



---

|(*) | Equity interest held directly by Last Chance, Inc.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **7 6**  **3 0** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

─ Appell ee ,
v. MITCHELL GATEWOOD , Defendant
─ Appell ant
. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis trict of N o r th Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 3 : 0 7

- c r - 00 054

- RJC

- 1; 3:08

- cv - 00182

- RJC )

Submitted : June 30 , 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN , and WYNN , Circuit Judge s .
Dismiss ed by unpubli shed per curiam opinion
.
Mitchell Gatewood , Appellant Pro Se
. M elissa Louise Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charl otte , N o r th Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mitchell Ga tewood seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating t hat reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Gatewood has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequa tely presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Floyd ALLEN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53232.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1973.

In re: Floyd Allen applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. Considering the transcript of the evidentiary hearing filed herein, the showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.