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

House Calendar No. 140 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 722 

[Report No. 113–600] 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 124) making 

continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 

Mr. COLE, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

124) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 

2015, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolu3 tion (H.J. Res. 124) making continuing appropriations for 

4 fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes. All points of 

5 order against consideration of the joint resolution are 

6 waived. The amendment printed in part A of the report 

7 of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 722 RH 

1 shall be considered as adopted. The joint resolution, as 

2 amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 

3 against provisions in the joint resolution, as amended, are 

4 waived. The previous question shall be considered as or5 dered on the joint resolution, as amended, and on any fur6 ther amendment thereto to final passage without inter7 vening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally di8 vided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

9 member of the Committee on Appropriations; (2) the fur10 ther amendment printed in part B of the report of the 

11 Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative McKeon 

12 of California or his designee, which shall be in order with13 out intervention of any point of order, shall be considered 

14 as read, shall be separately debatable for six hours equally 

15 divided and controlled by Representative McKeon of Cali16 fornia and Representative Smith of Washington or their 

17 respective designees, and shall not be subject to a demand 

18 for division of the question; and (3) one motion to recom19 mit with or without instructions. 

20 SEC. 2. Section 4(c) of House Resolution 567 is 

21 amended by adding the following new paragraph: 

22 ‘‘(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) 

23 through (f)(12) of clause 4 of rule XI shall be con24 sidered to be written rules adopted by the Select 

25 Committee as though pursuant to such clause.’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 140 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 722 

[Report No. 113–600] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution 

poses. tions for fiscal year 2015, and for other pur-(H.J. Res. 124) making continuing appropriaSEPTEMBER 15, 2014 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gus W. COATES.

No. 53092.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 8, 1973.

Allen B. Pierson, Jr., Pierson & Pierson, Ponchatoula, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Leonard E. Yokum, Dist. Atty., Edward B. Du-freche, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Gus W. Coates, was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated. La.R.S. 14:98. He was tried and convicted before a judge and was sentenced to pay a fine of $350.00 plus costs and to spend 60 days in jail. He appeals this conviction.

The defendant perfected no bills of exceptions. We are therefore limited on appeal to a review of the pleadings and proceedings for discoverable error. La.C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Ash, 257 La. 337, 242 So.2d 535 (1971). We find none.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### Roger FOSTER, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42941.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 23, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 266 So.2d 97.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Oscar Pablo DURAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43802.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 10, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 26, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 276 So.2d 254.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and - ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
REVISION A • 09/01/2008

UNIVAIR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

2500 Himalaya Road, Aurora, Colorado 80011

PHONE......................................303-375-8882

FAX...........................................303-375-8888

EMAIL..................................info@univair.com

WEBSITE..............................www.univair.com

MSM

Service and Maintenance Manual

MOONEY M10

Serial Numbers

690001 thru 690011

and

700001 and on

REVISION A • 09/01/2008

REVISION A • 09/01/2008

REVISION A • 09/01/2008

REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
#### COMUTRIX CORPORATION and Leo Greenfield, Appellants, v. John U. VAZQUEZ and Henry Frank, Appellees.

Nos. 71-882, 71-887.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 29, 1972.

Rehearing Denied March 15, 1972.

Shorenstein & Lewis, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Snyder, Young & Stern, and Joseph Teichman, North Miami Beach, for appel-lees.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal from summary and final judgments. We must reverse.

The original answers, although inartful, pled the defense of usury. The affidavits filed by defendants in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment set forth factual allegations supporting the defense of usury. We find the defense of usury, on these actions on promissory notes, raised a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude a summary judgment. We, therefore, reverse the summary and final judgments and remand for further action consistent herewith.

It is so ordered.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carol GIST.

No. 63061.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1978.

In re: Carol Gist applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

*794Writ denied. The showing made is insufficient to warrant action by this court.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 

### 07213 Removed from Public (Non-CBI) Docket 1 Copyright

Flag 2 File Name Description 

### 07213\07213_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 07213\07213_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 07213\07213_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07213\07213_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07213\07213_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07213\07213_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 07213\Certification Statement Plant ID 07213.PDF Plant certification statement 

### 07213\Supporting Documentation\07213_MAP-1 Garden City Station.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07213\Supporting Documentation\07213_WB-1 Garden City Station.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,341
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,025
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,913
<PP&E>                                          14,186
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,714
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,717
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,280
<OTHER-SE>                                     (75,735)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,087
<SALES>                                          3,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,186
<CGS>                                              697
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (23)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (23)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (23)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6800
MICHAEL F. DEHONEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY MAYNARD; JOYCE LAWTON; COCIE RUSHTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-02-321) Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 21, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, LEE, ERTER, WILSON, JAMES, HOLLER & SMITH, L.L.C., Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael F. Dehoney appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the order denying the motion for reconsideration. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). Because Dehoney did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the court’s dismissal of the action, without prejudice, was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1157 

To reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the Lackawanna 

Valley National Heritage Area, the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, and the Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2013 

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, 

the Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, the 

Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor, and 

the Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE 

4 AREAS AND CORRIDOR. 

5 (a) RIVERS OF STEEL NATIONAL HERITAGE

6 AREA.—Section 408 of the Steel Industry American Her7 itage Area Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333; 110 Stat. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1157 IS

1 4256; 127 Stat. 420) is amended by striking ‘‘2013’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘2023’’. 

3 (b) LACKAWANNA VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE

4 AREA.—Section 108 of the Lackawanna Valley National 

5 Heritage Area Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–278; 114 

6 Stat. 818; 127 Stat. 420) is amended by striking ‘‘2013’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘2023’’. 

8 (c) DELAWARE AND LEHIGH NATIONAL HERITAGE

9 CORRIDOR.—Section 12 of the Delaware and Lehigh 

10 Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 

11 (Public Law 100–692; 102 Stat. 4558; 112 Stat. 3260; 

12 123 Stat. 1293; 127 Stat. 420) is amended— 

13 (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ‘‘2013’’ and 

14 inserting ‘‘2023’’; and 

15 (2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘2013’’ and 

16 inserting ‘‘2023’’. 

17 (d) SCHUYLKILL RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERIT18 AGE AREA.—Section 209 of the Schuylkill River Valley 

19 National Heritage Area Act (Public Law 106–278; 114 

20 Stat. 824) is amended by striking ‘‘the date that is 15 

21 years after the date of enactment of this title’’ and insert22 ing ‘‘September 30, 2023’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
DATED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,593,224
<SECURITIES>                                25,971,448
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,474,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,049,183
<PP&E>                                       2,526,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,141,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,807,729
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,589
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,299,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,141,631
<SALES>                                      2,688,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,688,034
<CGS>                                        1,748,881
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,320,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                712,353
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            712,353
<DISCONTINUED>                             (11,519,468)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (10,807,115)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (3.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.01)


</TABLE>
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 14

- 00422

- CR
BENJAMIN MAURINE SAD LER , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 183rd District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1382570 ).
This case is an appeal from th e final judgment signed by the trial court on May 6, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered August 2 8 , 2015

. Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale. Opinion delivered by Justice Massengale.
# C_2021217EN.01001901.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court, Autonomous Section for the Province of Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 18 February 2021 — KW v Autonomous Province of Bolzano

(Case C-102/21)

(2021/C 217/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Administrative Court, Autonomous Section for the Province of Bolzano

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: KW

Defendant: Autonomous Province of Bolzano

Questions referred

| 1. | Did the aid authorised by Commission Decision SA.32113 (2010/N) of 25 July 2012 to cover 80 % of the costs of the construction of mini-hydroelectric power plants for the generation of electrical energy for own consumption from renewable energy sources for the benefit of mountain huts and hostels in high alpine areas, for which connection to the electricity grid is not feasible without disproportionate effort in technical and financial terms, expire on 31 December 2016? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Did the aid authorised by Commission Decision SA.32113 (2010/N) of 25 July 2012 to cover 80 % of the costs of the construction of mini-hydroelectric power plants for the generation of electrical energy for own consumption from renewable energy sources for the benefit of mountain huts and hostels in high alpine areas, for which connection to the electricity grid is not feasible without disproportionate effort in technical and financial terms, expire on 31 December 2016?

| 2. | If that question is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

If that question is answered in the affirmative:

| 2.1 | Is Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where aid is misused, the Commission must issue a recovery decision before the public authorities intervene? |
| --- | --- |

2.1

Is Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where aid is misused, the Commission must issue a recovery decision before the public authorities intervene?

| 2.2 | Is the abovementioned aid compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since it serves to facilitate the development of certain economic areas, or is it liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States? |
| --- | --- |

2.2

Is the abovementioned aid compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since it serves to facilitate the development of certain economic areas, or is it liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---
# C_2021349EN.01001802.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/18

---

Appeal brought on 4 June 2021 by Ryanair DAC against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 April 2021 in Case T-388/20, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair I; Covid-19)

(Case C-353/21 P)

(2021/C 349/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ryanair DAC (represented by: E. Vahida and F.-C. Laprévote, avocats, S. Rating, abogado, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikigoros, and V. Blanc, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Republic of Finland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 3387 final of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland — COVID-19: State loan guarantee for Finnair is void; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU that Commission Decision C(2020) 3387 final of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland — COVID-19: State loan guarantee for Finnair is void; and

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurrent by Ryanair, and order the interveners at first instance and in this appeal (if any) to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts in rejecting the Appellant’s plea concerning the infringement of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.

Second plea in law: the General Court infringed EU law in rejecting the Appellant’s claim that the non-discrimination principle has been unjustifiably violated.

Third plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the Appellant’s claim on the infringement of the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

Fourth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the failure to open a formal investigation procedure.

Fifth plea in law: the General Court erred in law and manifestly distorted the facts regarding the failure to state reasons.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2010 

0322 

Order 

 

March 29, 2010 

139493 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139493 

 COA: 290293 

Wayne CC: 03-005553-01 

FREDDIE LATESE WOMACK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 16, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).