alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J US T I NE L AWR E NZ L I NG AT ON G, a . k. a . J us t i ne L a w r e nz S a n M L i nga t ong, a . k. a . T urbo, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 30181 D . C . N o . 1 : 1 1 -cr-0 0 1 1 9 -E JL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

I da ho E dw a r d J . L odge , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2012 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an d F IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J us t i ne L a w r e nz L i nga t ong appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta nd c ha l l e nge s the 60- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f or 

# FI LED DE C 31 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 30181 2 b a n kf r au d , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 4 ; a n d a g g r a v a te d id e n tityth e f t, in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1028A . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, a nd w e a f f i rm. T h e g o v e rn m e n t c o n te n d s th a t th is ap p e a l s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d b e c au s e it is m oo tand b ec ause i ti s barre d b y the appeal w ai ver s etforth i n L i ng at on g’ s pl ea a gr e e m e nt . B e c aus e w e c a nnota s c e rt a i n f r om the r e c or d w he the ra nye f f e c t i ve re l i ef can b e grant ed, w e deny the go vernm ent ’ s r equestt o d i sm i ss the appeal as m o o t. Se e For e s t

G uardi ans v . J

ohanns , 4 5 0 F .3 d 4 5 5 , 4 6 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e al so decl i ne t o d i sm i ss the appeal on the basi s of the appeal w ai ver and i nst ea d a f f irm o n th e m e r its . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . J

a c o b o Ca s tillo , 4 9 6 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e n b a n c ) . Li n g a t o n g c o n t e n d s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u rte rr e d i n c o n c l u d i n g th a t1 8 U . S. C. § 1 02 8A re qu i re d thathi s f eder al se nt ence for a gg ra vat ed i dent i ty theftbe i m po se d consec ut i vel y t o, ra ther than con curr ent l y w i th, hi s s t at e pri son t erm . W e r evi ew i s s ue s of s t a tut oryi nt e rpr e t a t i on de novo. Se e U ni te d State s v . B egay , 622 F . 3d 1187, 1193 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . C ontr a ryt o L i nga t ong’ s c ont e nt i on, s e c t i on 1028A r e q u ir e d th e c o u rt to ru n h is s e n te n c e c o n s e c u tiv e ly . See 1 8 U. S . C . § 1 0 2 8 A; U ni ted Stat es v. G on zalez , 52 0 U . S . 1, 5 (19 97 ). AF F I RME D.
Brighter, Bolder, Better 

Amadeus Ancillary Services 

for airlines 

August 2012
© 2012 Amadeus IT Group SA 

Page 2 of 6

Brighter, Bolder, Better 

Overview 

The Amadeus Distribution Platform offers a comprehensive range of solutions all of which 

are carefully designed to meet an airline’s specific sales & distribution needs. 

Designed to enhance the entire process of travel agency distribution – from product display 

and sales facilitation to sales optimisation and post-sales business analysis. 

Amadeus specialized portfolios contain a range of distribution solutions to enable and 

enhance each of these steps for tailored distribution needs. 

In relation of optional services, the following pages describe two specific Amadeus solutions: 

• Amadeus Ancillary Services 

Enables airlines to maximize revenue and profits by selling ancillary services through all 

sales channels and at each touch point between the airline and its customers. 

The Amadeus ancillary services product is already in use. At this time, six airlines1

 are using 

the product in the GDS channel, and up to 17 have signed up. In addition, 17 airlines are 

using the product in other distribution channels and up to 44 airlines have signed up to use 

Amadeus technology to sell Ancillary Services. No U.S. airlines have signed up for this 

service. 

• Amadeus Electronic Miscellaneous Documents Server 

Amadeus Electronic Miscellaneous Documents Server (EMD Server) enables the airlines to 

reduce costs, improve revenue collection and enhance customer experience, eliminating 

manual paper processes, supporting the collection of all ancillary services types or providing 

interline and multi-coupon EMDs. 

Currently, up to 56 airlines have contracted Amadeus’ EMD Server. Amadeus created the 

word’s first interline EMD link between Finnair and Egypt Air. 

Amadeus Ancillary Services and EMD Server are available for airlines globally and our 

merchandising solutions allow a great level of personalization for example by adjusting 

pricing or availability according to frequent flyer number, or tailored according to bilateral 

agreements between Travel Management Companies (TMCs) and corporations. 

The following pages include a brief description of the products mentioned above 

 

 

1

 Qantas, Air France, CorsairFly, KLM, Iberia and Finnair 
© 2012 Amadeus IT Group SA 

Page 3 of 6

Brighter, Bolder, Better
© 2012 Amadeus IT Group SA 

Page 4 of 6

Brighter, Bolder, Better
© 2012 Amadeus IT Group SA 

Page 5 of 6

Brighter, Bolder, Better
© 2012 Amadeus IT Group SA 

Page 6 of 6

Brighter, Bolder, Better
#### Lionel J. HANNA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-807.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 20, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 25, 1972.

J. Brian Brennan, of Foley & Brennan, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that ' no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., and WHITE, JOSEPH S., Associate Judge, concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3231

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit tax-exempt financing

of certain transportation facilities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 6, 1993

Mr. TUCKER (for himself, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. WATERS, Mr. HORN,

Mr. BECERRA, and Ms. HARMAN) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit

tax-exempt financing of certain transportation facilities.

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

3 That (a) subsection (c) of section 142 of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 is amended—

5 (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para6 graph (3), and

7 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the follow8 ing new paragraph:

9 ‘‘(2) RELATED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.—
2

•HR 3231 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Transportation facili2 ties (including trackage and rail facilities) used

3 in connection with the transport of cargo or

4 passengers to or from a facility described in

5 paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall be

6 treated as facilities described in paragraph (1)

7 or (2) but only so long as, during the period

8 that any tax-exempt private activity bond issued

9 to provide such facilities is outstanding, at least

10 80 percent of the use of such facilities (deter11 mined on an annual basis) is in connection with

12 the transport of cargo or passengers to or from

13 a facility described in paragraph (1) or (2) of

14 subsection (a).

15 ‘‘(B) GOVERNMENTAL OWNERSHIP RE16 QUIREMENT.—For purposes of subparagraph

17 (A) of subsection (b)(1), facilities described in

18 subparagraph (A) of this paragraph leased by a

19 governmental unit shall be treated as owned by

20 such governmental unit if the requirements of

21 clauses (i) and (iii) of subsection (b)(1)(B) are

22 satisfied. Rules similar to the rules of the pre23 ceding sentence shall apply to management con24 tracts and similar types of operating or use

25 agreements.’’
3

•HR 3231 IH

1 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall

2 apply to obligations issued after the date of the enactment

3 of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                      23.1

                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

                                      -19-

<PAGE>

Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
The Sports Club Company, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
333-26421) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statement (No. 333-38459) on Form
S-3 of The Sports Club Company, Inc. of our report dated February 23, 2002,
except as to Note 15 which is as of March 18, 2002, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of The Sports Club Company, Inc as of December 31,
2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and the related financial statement schedule, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001,
which report appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of
the Sports Club Company, Inc.

KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 29, 2002

                                      -20-
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3602 — JABIL/PHILIPS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS POLAND)

(2004/C 319/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 17 November 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3911 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3911

To prohibit the imposition by the Federal Government of global budgets, 
  health care premium caps, and similar limits on private health care 
                   expenditures in geographic areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 1994

   Mr. Miller of Florida (for himself, Mr. Armey, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. 
 Boehner, Mr. Cox, Mr. Dornan, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Saxton, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. 
  Gingrich, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Lewis of Florida) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the imposition by the Federal Government of global budgets, 
  health care premium caps, and similar limits on private health care 
                   expenditures in geographic areas.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING IMPOSITION OF FEDERAL LIMITS ON HEALTH CARE 
              EXPENDITURES IN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS.

    No Federal officer, employee, or agency may impose, through a 
global budget, a cap on health insurance premiums, or otherwise, a 
limit on private health care expenditures which has an adverse impact 
on the health care choices of individuals in one or more geographic 
areas within the United States.

                                 <all>
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LAUREN LINARES, CECILIA LOYOLA, )

JAMES STANLEY, SAMUEL UNGER, )

JACOB UNGER, CATHERINE UNGER, )

JESSICA MAGER, KARL MAGER, )

MARSHA MAGER, AMBER DINICOLA, )

ALEXIS DINICOLA, JOSEPH )

DINICOLA, ALEXA MCPHERON, )

MICHELLE MCPHERON, MICHELLE )

CARVALHO, NOAH RADLE, )

BENJAMIN RADLE, STEPHEN RADLE, )

AJ NESSLER, ANTHONY NESSLER )

and ALISON FAIELLA, )

)

Appellants, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1729

)

SCHOOL BOARD OF PASCO )

COUNTY, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 7, 2018. 

Appeal from the Division of 

Administrative Hearings.

Sharon Carlstedt Britton and Caroline 

Newton Catchpole of Phelps Dunbar 

LLP, Tampa, for Appellants.

Dennis J. Alfonso and Knute J. Nathe

of McClain, Alfonso, Meeker & Nathe, 

Dade City, for Appellee. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, several Pasco County parents and students (Parents) 

challenged an Administrative Law Judge's determination that the Pasco County School 

Board validly exercised its delegated legislative authority in approving a change of 

school attendance boundaries for the 2017-2018 school year (the Attendance Boundary 

Rule). While this appeal was pending, the Parents also had pending in the trial court a 

related but separate lawsuit alleging that the School Board had violated Florida's 

Sunshine Laws during its deliberations on the Attendance Boundary Rule. The Parents 

prevailed in that lawsuit, and the trial court quashed the Attendance Boundary Rule. 

The trial court denied the School Board's subsequent motion for rehearing, and the 

School Board has not appealed.

The challenged rule having been quashed, this appeal is dismissed as 

moot.1 See Fla. Citizens All., Inc. v. Sch. Bd. of Collier Cty., 247 So. 3d 720 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2018); Lund v. Dep't of Health, 708 So. 2d 645, 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ("The 

general rule in Florida is that a case on appeal becomes moot when a change in 

circumstances occurs before an appellate court's decision, thereby making it impossible 

for the court to provide effectual relief."); cf. Freni v. Collier County, 573 So. 2d 1054, 

1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (affirming an order denying as moot a temporary injunction to 

enjoin a referendum regarding a proposed tax where, after denial of the motion, the 

referendum was held and the appellants' position prevailed). 

Dismissed. 

VILLANTI, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

1

It appears that the School Board has since conducted additional 

proceedings and, based on those, has approved a new change of school attendance 

boundaries.
# C_2015055EN.01001201.xml

| 14.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/12

---

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2015/C 55/07)

The Minister for Economic Affairs hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block L3 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to the Directive mentioned in the introduction and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block L3 of the Dutch continental shelf.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the abovementioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to:

Official Journal of the European Union

| The Minister for Economic Affairs |
| --- |
| attn.: Ms J. J. van Beek, Energy Market Directorate |
| Bezuidenhoutseweg 73 |
| Postbus 20401, |
| 2500 EK Den Haag |
| NEDERLAND |

The Minister for Economic Affairs

attn.: Ms J. J. van Beek, Energy Market Directorate

Bezuidenhoutseweg 73

Postbus 20401,

2500 EK Den Haag

NEDERLAND

Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than 12 months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained by calling Ms J. J. van Beek on the following telephone number: +31 703796326.

---
# C_2015227EN.01000501.xml

| 11.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/5

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2015/C 227/04)

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 | 21.5.2015 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 21.5 – 31.12.2015 |
| Member State | Denmark |
| Stock or Group of stocks | SAN/234_1 |
| Species | Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) |
| Zone | Union waters of sandeel management area 1 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 05/TQ104 |

Date and time of closure

21.5.2015

Duration

21.5 – 31.12.2015

Member State

Denmark

Stock or Group of stocks

SAN/234_1

Species

Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.)

Ammodytes

Zone

Union waters of sandeel management area 1

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

05/TQ104

---

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

1

---
1 

### NUMBER 13
- 13
- 00 426
- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF S.B. JR., A CHILD

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

_ ___________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief J ustice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

A ppellant, S.B. Jr., a child, has appealed from an order of disposition committing appellant to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (the “TJJD”)

. The appellant's brief

in the above cause was originally due on January 13, 2014 . Appellant has previously requested and received three prior extensions of time to file the brief , with the last deadline to file the brief having been set at May 29, 2014

. Appellant did not file the brief.2

On June 9 , 2014, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date
of rece ipt of this letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a ). A ppellant has failed to file the brief. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED
FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See id. ; see also R. 42.3(b) (c)

.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 17th day of July , 20 14

.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3701 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3701

   To deauthorize a portion of the project for navigation, Falmouth, 
                 Massachusetts, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 22, 1993

  Mr. Studds introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To deauthorize a portion of the project for navigation, Falmouth, 
                 Massachusetts, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CHANNEL DEAUTHORIZATION, FALMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS.

    (a) Deauthorization.--The portions described in paragraphs (1) and 
(2) of the project for navigation, Falmouth, Massachusetts, authorized 
by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1172), are 
not authorized after the date of the enactment of this Act.
            (1) The portion commencing at a point north 199286.37 east 
        844394.81 a line running north 73 degrees 09 minutes 24.6 
        seconds east 440.44 feet to a point north 199413.99 east 
        844816.36, thence turning and running north 43 degrees 09 
        minutes 34.5 seconds east 119.99 feet to a point north 
        199501.52 east 844898.44, thence turning and running south 66 
        degrees 52 minutes 04.4 seconds east 547.66 feet returning to a 
        point north 199286.37 east 844394.81.
            (2) The portion commencing at a point north 199647.42 east 
        845035.25 a line running north 43 degrees 09 minutes 35.0 
        seconds east 767.14 feet to a point north 200207.01 east 
        845560.00, thence turning and running north 11 degrees 04 
        minutes 24.3 seconds west 380.08 feet to a point north 
        200580.01 east 845487.00, thence turning and running north 22 
        degrees 05 minutes 50.8 seconds east 1332.36 feet to a point 
        north 201814.50 east 845988.21, thence turning and running 
        north 02 degrees 54 minutes 15.7 seconds east 15.0 feet to a 
        point north 201829.48 east 845988.97, thence turning and 
        running south 23 degrees 36 minutes 31.9 seconds west 2381.38 
        feet returning to the point north 199647.42 east 845035.25.
    (b) Redesignation.--The portion of the project referred to in 
subsection (a) upstream of a line designated by the two points north 
199463.18 east 844496.40 and north 199350.36 east 844544.60 is 
redesignated as an anchorage area.

                                 <all>
```