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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3124 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3124

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
       coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel RBOAT.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 1993

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
       coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel RBOAT.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade of the United States for the vessel 
RBOAT (official number 563955).

                                 <all>
```
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of DEVON PIERRE, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>National Liability &amp; Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered December 10, 2013. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claim at issue based upon the assignor's failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendant's cross motion. </p><p>Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that the papers submitted in support of defendant's cross motion failed to establish that the letters scheduling the IMEs of plaintiff's assignor had been mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled and, thus, that it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>However, contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the papers submitted in support of its motion failed to establish either that the claim at issue had not been timely denied (<a href="../2015/2015_04787.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.</i>, 25 NY3d 498</a> [2015]), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (<a href="../2010/2010_08933.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, 78 AD3d 1168</a> [2010]; <a href="../2011/2011_51292.htm" target="_blank"><i>Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co.</i>, 32 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: November 01, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Delio PEREZ et al., Appellants, v. Betty GILL et al., Appellees.

Nos. 77-656, 77-1006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1978.

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, McMath, Tutan & O’Hara and Richard A. Sherman, Miami, for appellants.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, George P. Tel-epas, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY and KEHOE, JJ., and PIERCE, WILLIAM C. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Bould v. Touchette,*349 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1977); *Egidi Industrial Park Corp. v. Wide Open Spaces, Inc.,*335 So.2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); *Fernandez v. Arocha,*308 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); *Talcott v. Holl,*224 So.2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); and *Wilkinson v. Grover,*181 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
#### Anna LEHRER, Appellant, v. The FONTAINEBLEU HOTEL CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-229.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 20, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1973.

Horton & Perse and Arnold Ginsberg, Rabin, Sassoon & Ratiner, Miami, for appellant.

Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed an action for personal injuries received when she fell in a restaurant of the defendant-appellee. The case was tried on issues of negligence and contributory negligence. The defendant moved for directed verdict at the close of the evidence. The court reserved ruling and the case went to the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Thereafter the court granted defendant’s deferred motion for directed verdict, and entered judgment for defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

The rule controlling the trial court’s consideration of the defendant’s motion for directed verdict, that the motion should not be granted unless it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict of the plaintiff,1 is applicable upon consideration by the court, after verdict, of a deferred motion for directed verdict, where ruling on a motion therefor made prior to verdict has been reserved and the jury has rendered a verdict for the plaintiff.2 Likewise, on reviewing a judgment for the defendant based on such a directed verdict the appellate court is required to observe the settled rule that it should consider the testimony adduced in the cause in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, disregard*637ing conflicts in the evidence and indulging in plaintiff’s favor every reasonable in-tendment deducible from the evidence.3

Upon so considering the evidence presented, we hold that it was proper for the case to be submitted to the jury for determination of the issues involved. Accordingly the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded with direction to reinstate the verdict for the plaintiff, and enter judgment thereon.

1

. Chambers v. Loftin, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 220, 221; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174; Cadore v. Karp, Fla.1957, 91 So.2d 806; Paikin v. Beach Cabs, Inc., Fla. App.1966, 187 So.2d 93, 94; Guerriero v. Adams, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 432.

2

. Whitman v. Red Top Sedan Services, Inc., FIa.App.1969, 218 So.2d 213, 215.

3

. Rodi v. Florida Greyhound Lines, Fla.1953, 62 So.2d 355, 356; Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Tampa Electric Co., Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 179, 40 A.L.R.2d 1293; Brightwell v. Beem, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 320, 322; Guhman v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 749, 750.
#### DURA-TRED CORP. et al., Petitioners, v. Ruth WINSTON et al., Respondents.

No. 43141.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 11, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements No.
33-61025  and  333-09131  on Form S-3, and in the  Registration  Statements  No.
33-65439 and 033-09133 on Form S-8 of Del Global  Technologies  Corp.  (formerly
Del Electronics  Corp.) and subsidiaries,  of our report dated October 23, 1996,
appearing in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Del Global  Technologies  Corp.
and subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended August 3, 1996.







S/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


New York, New York
November 12, 1996
OFFICE OF THE ATlORNMGENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Honorable George II. Sheppard conptroller 03,PubUo A~oouatr ~twbln,Texas.

.

Thfhe qusrrtfoa hns arisen ln.thle deyatmnt as to whether a witaelre traveling to euoh oourt or gand jury on a railway pass or ia. a 

### sttte autor,obile would be entitled to thb threeoents a per nLle aa lndloated la the above quoted seatiqn of Art101e 1030, C.C*P*

### ,-- ‘
. 

### .ll6
Hooorablr Oeorfa Ii.Sheppard,pago 0

, *In some lmtaaoea witnessoe are carrled

to oourt by peaae offlaers or rtute patrolmen In atato owned auixcnobilesb Fould ouch wittie33 be ontltlod to hla thr?a oents n tila?n 1

. Prior to Its’ amendaent, SootIOn 1 Of Art1010 lo%, V.A.C.C.P., provided t&at such altnoasa

“a . , ohall,.ba allOwed his actual travolin~ aznmees. not etoesdinr: 4 cmts gor 

### ZiiTF~oia~.

to and r:;turnin:: fro31 the oour5 orrend jury, by thg naaroat practical coaVQ~MQO,and two dollars per **dry** for **each** dcy he “--?ynecessarily bo aboont iron haze as a witness In suchoaaa.W Youcm respectfully ~dvlsod tkst it is the oyinion or this de~artmnt that auoh~~ltnesses would bo entitled to thz% ooritsFar mile .f,oln”, to and returnini:fro;?the oourt or @md jury by the nearest praotioal. cowsyar.as. ‘.%ethrr they truvelled 02 a railway ;ms, with seats officera, la jbte om~d auto?nobllss, or in their ownsutonoblles would be Imatjerlal.

However, wewish to >olnt out that State cmployoes oannot olals tr~vazing expsases fro?!the ztate and also frm the court ln stats oases+ See Subdivision U(a) OS saction 2 of tha Departmental Amroprlation Bill, 47th Logirlature or Tons, which roadsas tollowr;

“a, Notraveling erponsoi shall be * olaixid, allowed, or pnld ualees Incurredwhile

travelinir, on State business. My 9tete 

### 0rricid or 

### saployee sntitlsd to traveiI0g ~XPXNJ~S

out of state appropriations herein made, whoIs la~ally or oiiicially raquired to be preeant at the trial of any State 0880, shall not alctin; trovelln~ ox~onses fro?, the St&t&aid 

### ulfiofrom the Court vjhersir. zld CRBO 5s :\sadlng. It by oYersi@t, duplioata cl~~lzs are fllud for said travollzq ox.p.sra and oolleoted,then naid offioors or e~gloyeoe s>&ll rel&buroe ani?refund to tho X-ate Treaauror an amount equal to thrc

reapactive amountoolleotsd under such xitnoss iaer and mlleugr olalm.*

WF x eaw

**:**
#### MARYLAND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Georgia corporation, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, for the Use and Benefit of DADE COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 70-689—70-692.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 12, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed.
# C_2015324DE.01003601.xml

| 2.10.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 324/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 324/36

---

Berichtigung der Mitteilung der Kommission — Leitlinien für staatliche Beihilfen zur Rettung und Umstrukturierung nichtfinanzieller Unternehmen in Schwierigkeiten

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 249 vom 31. Juli 2014
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 249 vom 31. Juli 2014

(2015/C 324/16)

Auf Seite 21, Randnummer 109 Buchstabe a:

anstatt:

anstatt:

| „a) | der Mitgliedstaat einen Umstrukturierungs- oder Abwicklungsplan vorlegen oder“ |
| --- | --- |

„a)

der Mitgliedstaat einen Umstrukturierungs- oder Abwicklungsplan vorlegen oder“

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

| „a) | der Mitgliedstaat einen Umstrukturierungs- oder Abwicklungsplan genehmigen oder“. |
| --- | --- |

„a)

der Mitgliedstaat einen Umstrukturierungs- oder Abwicklungsplan genehmigen oder“.

Auf Seite 21, Randnummer 109 Buchstabe b:

anstatt:

anstatt:

| „b) | das begünstigte Unternehmen einen vereinfachten Umstrukturierungsplan nach Randnummer 115 vorlegen.“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

das begünstigte Unternehmen einen vereinfachten Umstrukturierungsplan nach Randnummer 115 vorlegen.“

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

| „b) | das begünstigte Unternehmen einen vereinfachten Umstrukturierungsplan nach Randnummer 115 vorlegen oder“. |
| --- | --- |

„b)

das begünstigte Unternehmen einen vereinfachten Umstrukturierungsplan nach Randnummer 115 vorlegen oder“.

---
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Del Laboratories, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph Sinicropi,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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


/s/ Joseph Sinicropi
--------------------
Joseph Sinicropi
Chief Financial Officer
March 29, 2006
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 5


                    [NUTTER, MCCLENNEN & FISH, LLP LETTERHEAD]


                                                                 August 18, 2000


GenRad, Inc.
7 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886-0033


Gentlemen/Ladies:

     Reference is made to that certain Amendment Number 1 to Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (the "Registration Statement") which GenRad, Inc. (the
"Company") is filing on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
with respect to the resale of up to 114,074 shares (the "Shares") of the
Company's common stock, $1.00 par value per share, acquired by the holders
thereof (the "Holders") in connection with the Company's acquisition of
Motor Industry Services, Limited.

     We have acted as counsel for the Company in connection with the
Registration Statement. We have examined original or certified copies of the
Articles of Organization of the Company, the Company's By-laws, certain
corporate records of the Company, certificates of public officials and such
other documents, records and materials as we have deemed necessary in connection
with this opinion letter. Based upon the foregoing, and in reliance upon
information from time to time furnished to us by the Company's officers,
directors and agents, we are of the opinion that the Shares, when sold by the
Holders upon the terms described in the Registration Statement, will be duly and
validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

     We understand that this opinion letter is to be used in connection with the
Registration Statement, as finally amended, and hereby consent to the filing of
this opinion letter with and as a part of the Registration Statement as so
amended, and to the reference to our firm in the Prospectus under the heading
"Legal Matters." It is understood that this opinion letter is to be used in
connection with the resale of the aforesaid Shares only while the Registration
Statement is effective as so amended and as it may be amended from time to time
as contemplated by Section 10(a)(3) of the Securities Act.


                                       Very truly yours,

                                       /s/ Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3141

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade of the United States for the vessel VIKING.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1993

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade of the

United States for the vessel VIKING.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46,

6 United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may

7 issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate en8 dorsement for employment in the coastwise trade of the
2

•HR 3141 IH

1 United States for the vessel VIKING (United States offi2 cial number 286080).

Æ
Exhibit 15

LETTER OF AWARENESS FROM DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

To
the Board of Directors and
Shareholders of Investors Financial Services Corp:

We
have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of Investors Financial Services
Corp. and subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30, 2004 and 2003, as indicated in our report dated November 12, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on that information.

We
are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, is incorporated by reference
in the following Registration Statements:

Filed
on Form S-8:



We
also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statements prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
November 15, 2004

---



QuickLinks
# C_2014368EN.01001401.xml

| 17.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/14

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2014/C 368/07

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 13.9.2014 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 13.9.2014–31.12.2014 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Stock or Group of stocks | LEZ/8ABDE. |
| Species | Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.) |
| Zone | VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 50/TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

13.9.2014

Duration

13.9.2014–31.12.2014

Member State

Belgium

Stock or Group of stocks

LEZ/8ABDE.

Species

Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.)

Lepidorhombus

Zone

VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

50/TQ43

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00694
- CV

Joseph Martinez, Appellant

v. Samantha Renee Garcia, Appellee

FROM THE 261ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 13
- 005776 , THE HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDG E PRESIDI NG

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant ’ s b rief was originally due on December 2, 2019 . O n December 11, 2019 , this Court sent a notice to appellant informing him that his b rief was overdue and that a failure to
file a satisfactory response by January 2, 2020 , would result in the dismissal of his appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3( b ).

__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Just ice
Before C hi ef Justice Rose, Justices B aker and Tria na Dismissed for Want of P rosecution
Filed: January 24, 2020
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 339

To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect to avoiding certain

liens that impair exempt property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. SARPALIUS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect

to avoiding certain liens that impair exempt property.

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 ‘‘Secured Credit Avail5 ability Amendments of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

7 Section 522 of title 11, United States Code, is

8 amended—

9 (1) in subsection (f) by inserting ‘‘and except as

10 provided in subsection (n)’’ after ‘‘exemptions’’, and
2

•HR 339 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following:

2 ‘‘(n) The debtor may not avoid the fixing of a lien

3 on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that

4 such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would

5 have been entitled under subsection (b)(2), if—

6 ‘‘(A) such lien is a nonpossessory, nonpurchase7 money security interest in any tools of the trade, im8 plements, animals, or crops; and

9 ‘‘(B) the State law referred to in such sub10 section prohibits the debtor from avoiding the fixing

11 of such lien to such extent.’’.

12 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

13 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub14 section (b), the amendments made by section 2 shall take

15 effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

16 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend17 ments made by section 2 shall not apply with respect to

18 cases commenced under title 11 of the United States Code

19 before the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ