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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 103 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource 

study of P.S. 103 in West Baltimore, Maryland and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 

special resource study of P.S. 103 in West Baltimore, 

Maryland 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall’s 

5 Elementary School Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

9 the Secretary of the Interior. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•S 103 IS

1 (2) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

2 means P.S. 103, the public school located in West 

3 Baltimore, Maryland, which Thurgood Marshall at4 tended as a youth. 

5 SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY. 

6 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a special 

7 resource study of the study area. 

8 (b) CONTENTS.—In conducting the study under sub9 section (a), the Secretary shall— 

10 (1) evaluate the national significance of the 

11 study area; 

12 (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of 

13 designating the study area as a unit of the National 

14 Park System; 

15 (3) consider other alternatives for preservation, 

16 protection, and interpretation of the study area by 

17 the Federal Government, State or local government 

18 entities, or private and nonprofit organizations; 

19 (4) consult with interested Federal agencies, 

20 State or local governmental entities, private and 

21 nonprofit organizations, or any other interested indi22 viduals; 

23 (5) identify cost estimates for any Federal ac24 quisition, development, interpretation, operation, and 

25 maintenance associated with the alternatives; and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•S 103 IS

1 (6) identify any authorities that would compel 

2 or permit the Secretary to influence local land use 

3 decisions under the alternatives. 

4 (c) APPLICABLE LAW.—The study required under 

5 subsection (a) shall be conducted in accordance with sec6 tion 8 of the National Park System General Authorities 

7 Act (16 U.S.C. 1a–5). 

8 (d) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

9 on which funds are first made available to carry out the 

10 study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to 

11 the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Rep12 resentatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

13 Resources of the Senate a report that describes— 

14 (1) the results of the study; and 

15 (2) any conclusions and recommendations of the 

16 Secretary. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000753557
<NAME>                        LBO Capital Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollar



<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                             63
<SECURITIES>                                   32,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                 315,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              348,443
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                348,443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,020,773
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,210
<OTHER-SE>                                   (673,540)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  348,443
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,781
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   7,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             67,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (59,809)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (59,809)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)



</TABLE>
II 

Calendar No. 420 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1077 

[Report No. 113–189] 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to provide for the 

reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. CARPER, Mr. WARNER, Mr. 

COONS, and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

JUNE 5, 2014 

Reported by Mrs. BOXER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to 

provide for the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay 

Gateways and Watertrails Network. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chesapeake Bay Gate5 ways and Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act’’. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1077 RS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act 

3 of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105–312) is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years’’ and all that follows 

5 through the period at the end and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 

6 2014 through 2018.’’. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN2PROD with BILLS

tjames on DSK5VPTVN2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 420 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1077 

[Report No. 113–189] 

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 

work. Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Net1998 to provide for the reauthorization of the 

JUNE 5, 2014 

Reported without amendment 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN2PROD with BILLS
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1093 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant 

Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2013 

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

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, 

as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post 

Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT ALVIN CHESTER 

4 COCKRELL, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 130 Caldwell Drive in 

7 Hazlehurst, Mississippi, shall be known and designated as 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1093 IS

1 the ‘‘First Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Of2 fice Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘First Lieutenant Alvin 

7 Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Calvin WHIDDEN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-830.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 5, 1972.

On Rehearing Aug. 2, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1972.

John M. Hathaway, Punta Gorda, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition denied.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JJ„ concur.

*191ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Petition for rehearing is granted upon authority of Alvarez v. State, 157 Fla. 254, 25 So.2d 661 (1946). Petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with Alvarez v. State, *supra.*

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                 EXHIBIT 10.2

                GREAT WESTERN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                            AMENDMENT
                                TO
               NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
                     WITH JAMES F. MONTGOMERY
                      DATED JANUARY 25, 1994


      This Amendment between Great Western Financial Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation") and James F. Montgomery (the "Employee")
effectuates the changes to the subject option agreement (the "Option
Agreement") contemplated by the Amendment to Employment Agreement between the
Corporation and the Employee dated as of April 25, 1995 (the "Amendment"),
as approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation.  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined have
the meanings assigned to them in the Option Agreement or the Plan, as the
case may be.

This Amendment shall be effective as of 4:59 p.m. Pacific Standard
Time on December 28, 1995, but only if the Employment Agreement (as
defined in the Amendment) has not been terminated in accordance with
its terms by action of the Corporation before that time.

      FOR VALID CONSIDERATION, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties amend the Option Agreement as follows:

      1.  EFFECT OF TERMINATION.  Section 6 of the Option Agreement is
amended to change the caption thereof and to add a sentence at the end
thereof, as follows:

     "6.  EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF SERVICES OR DEATH.    * * * * *    
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Option and all other rights hereunder,
with respect to 23,750 shares, shall be extended and shall not terminate nor
become null and void until two (2) years after the later of a termination of
Employee's services as a member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation
or the termination of his services as a Consultant under his Consulting
Agreement dated as of April 25, 1995, EXCEPT THANT in no event may the Option
be exercised by anyone under this Section or otherwise after the Expiration
Date."  

<PAGE>
<PAGE>

     2.   MISCELLANY.  Section 12 (subsidiaries) of the Option Agreement
is deleted.


               GREAT WESTERN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
               (a Delaware Corporation)


               By  J. Lance Erikson             
                  -----------------------------
               Its Executive Vice President



               EMPLOYEE


               /s/James F. Montgomery             
               --------------------------------
               Signature




APPROVED:


By: /s/Charles D. Miller       
    -----------------------
    Charles D. Miller
    Chairman, Compensation Committee
    of the Board of Directors
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-10534

Summary Calendar

____________________

RODNEY W. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NANCY J. CHAPMAN; SCOTT O. ENGEL,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CV-209

May 11, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Rodney W. Johnson, Texas

prisoner # 642258, contends that there was insufficient evidence to

support the jury’s verdict. Because Johnson did not move for a

judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence or after

the return of the verdict, our review is limited to “the legality

of the verdict, i.e., whether there is any evidence to support the

jury verdict.” Phillips v. Frey, 20 F.3d 623, 627 (5th Cir. 1994).
- 2 -

We have reviewed the record and find that there is evidence to

support the verdict. See id.

Johnson contends for the first time on appeal that various

members of the jury venire and members of the jury were biased. Of

course, our review is limited to plain error. See Douglass v.

United Services Auto. Ass’n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1428 (5th Cir. 1996)(en

banc). Because this issue involves issues of fact capable of

resolution in the district court, Johnson has not demonstrated such

error. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th

Cir. 1995); United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir.

1995). 

Johnson also contends that he was denied medical treatment

after the alleged use of force. The district court did not

instruct the jury concerning this claim and the jury did not

address it. Moreover, at trial, Johnson did not object to the jury

instructions in this regard, nor does he contend now that the

instructions were defective. Consequently, he has abandoned this

claim on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.

1993); Brinkman v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d

744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                            PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
                                                -----------------------------------------------
                                                   NUMBER            PERCENT       EQUIVALENT
                                                  OF SHARES        OUTSTANDING       SHARES
                                                -------------     -------------   -------------
<S>                                             <C>               <C>             <C>      
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                             2,300,000           100.00%       2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                            642,233            96.99%         622,916
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock       15,310,943           100.00%      15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                     11,242,857           100.00%      11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                      4,323,874           100.00%       4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                       6,000,000           100.00%       6,000,000
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued          58,431            54.03%          31,573
   1997 Warrants Exercised                             48,300            97.59%          47,137
                                                -------------                     -------------
                                                   39,926,638                        39,879,300

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                  39,879,300

NET LOSS                                                                          $ (11,104,845)


NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                $       (0.28)
                                                                                  =============
</TABLE>
# C_2023179EN.01003701.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Beauty Biosciences v EUIPO — Société de Recherche Cosmétique (BIO-BEAUTÉ)

(Case T-750/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark BIO-BEAUTÉ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Article 52(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75, first sentence of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Beauty Biosciences LLC (Dallas, Texas, United States) (represented by: D. Mărginean, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and R. Raponi, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société de Recherche Cosmétique SARL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and the alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 September 2021 (Joined Cases R 1871/2020-4 and R 1891/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 September 2021 (Joined Cases R 1871/2020-4 and R 1891/2020-4) in so far as it concerns ‘perfumes, toilet water, eau de Cologne; essential oils; incense, perfume water’ and ‘dentifrices’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 September 2021 (Joined Cases R 1871/2020-4 and R 1891/2020-4) in so far as it concerns ‘perfumes, toilet water, eau de Cologne; essential oils; incense, perfume water’ and ‘dentifrices’;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.

---
#### James ROBINSON, Appellant, v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Appellee.

No. 71-773.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 29, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, Florida, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. Q-145.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 7, 1972.

Ferrin C. Campbell and Dale E. Rice, of Campbell & Rice, Crestview, and Walter J. Smith, of Smith, Tolton & Wolff, Fort Walton Beach, for appellant.

James E. Moore, Jr., of Moore & Dew-rell, Valparaiso, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See City of Fort Walton Beach, Florida v. Southern State Steel Corporation, 202 So.2d 616 (Fla.App. 1967).

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
No. 95-3359

 

United States of America, on *

behalf of the Department of *

the Treasury, Internal Revenue *

Service, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Woody's R.V. Sales, Inc.; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Donald E. Barnett; *

Appellants. *

 

Submitted: March 11, 1996

 Filed: March 22, 1996

 

Before MAGILL, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

 

PER CURIAM.

Woody's R.V. Sales, Inc. and Donald E. Barnett appeal the district

court's determination that Gale Edd Williams had an ownership interest in

a yacht at the time the IRS levied upon it. Barnett and Williams purchased

the yacht together in 1990. In January 1993, as part of a property

settlement agreement, Barnett took possession of the yacht and assumed

responsibility for the yacht payments, including the mortgage, maintenance,

and repairs. At that time, Williams took possession of an automobile that

he and Barnett had also jointly owed. He refused, however, to sign any

documents transferring title on the yacht to Barnett until April 27, 1995,

when Barnett agreed to satisfy an outstanding obligation to Williams'

brother-in-law. 
On April 4, 1995, the IRS levied on the yacht in an effort to collect

a $30,000 tax assessment owed by Williams. One day later, unaware of the

IRS levy, Barnett levied on the yacht in an attempt to collect

approximately $150,000 that Williams owed him. Thereafter, Barnett filed

a motion for an order in aid of execution with the district court. He

requested that the court declare that Williams had no ownership interest

in the yacht or alternatively, that it order postponement of the IRS sale.

The IRS intervened. 

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Barnett's

motion and upheld the IRS levy. It determined that title of the yacht was

not unconditionally in Barnett's name until Williams signed it over to him

on August 27, 1995, after the IRS levy. In the alternative, the district

court held that even if Barnett was the sole owner at the time of the lien,

Williams and Barnett were joint owners as to third parties who did not know

about their agreement. 

The evidence before the court supported its conclusion that the

parties did not intend title to pass to Barnett until he fulfilled his

obligations to Williams. Because we agree that, under Arkansas law,

Williams had an ownership interest in the yacht at the time of the tax

lien, we need not consider the district court's alternative holding in this

case. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.