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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 89 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 89

  Withdrawing approval of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
                             Organization.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2020

Mr. DeFazio (for himself and Mr. Pallone) submitted the following joint 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Withdrawing approval of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
                             Organization.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress withdraws 
its approval, provided under section 101(a) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, of the WTO Agreement as defined in section 2(9) of that 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Frederico Gonzalez, Also Known as Michael Berrios, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, Eddie Gonzalez, et al., Appellants, v Ernest Paniccioli et al., Respondents.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated November 28, 1989, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the complaint due to the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose *(see,*CPLR 3126). A preliminary conference order dated October 18, 1985, directed the infant plaintiff to submit to a physical examination within 60 days and to appear for an examination before trial on December 3, 1985. The infant plaintiff failed to appear on those dates and on subsequent dates to which the matter was adjourned, notwithstanding three court orders issued over the course of three years.

According to his counsel, the whereabouts of the infant plaintiff were unknown in that he had been taken to Puerto Rico by his mother, who had not been in contact with counsel. That the infant plaintiff has made himself unavailable does not preclude the imposition of sanctions for failure to comply with discovery *(see, Reitte v Entermy Cab Corp.,*162 AD2d 259; *Moriates v Powertest Petroleum. Co.,*114 AD2d 888; *Foti v Suero,*97 AD2d 748; *cf., Rosner v Blue Channel Corp.,*131 AD2d 654). The infant plaintiff’s three-year absence and consequent violations of several court orders was sufficient to find a willful failure to comply with discovery. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE. 

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
Agricultural Marketing Service, Specialty Crops Program, Specialty Crops Inspection Division

Index of Official Visual Aids for Potatoes (POT-L-1) (July 2017) 

SCI Division Inspection Series

Page 1 of 1

INDEX OF OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS FOR POTATOES (POT.-L-1)

The Official Visual Aids for Potatoes (POT.-L-1) is a compilation of visual aids issued from May 

1998 to the present. Please ensure this index is added to the front of the Official Visual Aids for 

Potatoes (POT.-L-1) Binder.

Photo(s) Date Page Number(s)

1-2 May 1998 1 

3-4 July 2017 1

5-10 May 1998 1-2 

11-13 July 2017 2-3 

14-135 May 1998 3-29 

136 July 2017 29

137-143 May 1998 29-30 

Fingerling Potatoes Shape August 2011 31 

Netting (Identification Only) August 2004 32

Elephant Hide November 2013 33 

Elephant Hide (Identification Only) November 2013 34 

Sprout Clusters on Potatoes May 2015 35 

“SCI moving forward in the 21st Century using technology, innovation, and old fashioned hard work” 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.





Identification Only

Not a basic requirement

(July 2017)

Identification Only

Not a basic requirement

(July 2017)
Well Shaped - Identification Only Not a basic requirement

(July 2017) (July 2017)

Well Shaped - Identification Only Not a basic requirement
Well Shaped - Identification Only

Not a basic requirement

(July 2017)

























(July 2017)





 IDENTIFICATION ONLY

 ELEPHANT HIDE

 Early/Superficial Stage - Not Scorable

 Photo courtesy of Lane Selman, Oregon State University

 USDA Visual Aid POT.-L-1-November 2013

34
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

M.N., JR., the Father,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD 

LITEM PROGRAM,

Appellees.

No. 4D14-2345

[April 8, 2015]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Lawrence Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

10000019DPAXMX.

Chet E. Weinbaum, Fort Pierce, for appellant.

Karla Perkins, Miami, for appellee Department of Children & Families.

Laura E. Lawson, Sanford, for appellee Guardian Ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

M.N., the Father, appeals the order dismissing his second motion to 

set aside a final judgment of adoption. We affirm.

The Father’s biological child was born to a marriage between the 

mother and the legal father. After the parental rights of the mother and 

the legal father were terminated, a relative adopted the child. The Father 

moved to set aside the adoption, claiming that notice required by statute 

was not provided to the Father. The trial court denied the motion 

without addressing the notice issue. Instead, the court found the Father 

did not have standing to contest the adoption because he was not the 

legal father.

After the Father’s appeal of the order was dismissed as untimely, the 

Father filed his second motion to set aside the adoption, again relying on 

the notice issue. The court accepted the state’s argument that the 

motion was procedurally barred based on the doctrine of res judicata, 
2

and the court denied the motion. 

We find that the court erred in finding the second motion was 

procedurally barred, as the court did not address the notice issue in its 

first order. See State, Dep’t of Transp. v. Bailey, 603 So. 2d 1384, 1387

(Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (recognizing that the doctrine of res judicata is not 

invoked if an issue was not “actually litigated and decided”). However, 

without addressing the merits of the Father’s argument, we affirm. 

Section 63.182(1), Florida Statutes (2013), a statute of repose,

1

provides that “an action or proceeding of any kind to vacate, set aside, or 

otherwise nullify a judgment of adoption . . . may not be filed more than 

1 year after entry of the judgment terminating parental rights.” Because 

the Father’s second motion was filed in December 2013, more than one 

year after the termination order was entered, the statute bars his action 

to set aside the adoption.

Affirmed.

STEVENSON, TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 “[S]tatutes of repose bar actions by setting a time limit within which an action 

must be filed as measured from a specified act, after which time the cause of 

action is extinguished . . . .” Merkle v. Robinson, 737 So. 2d 540, 542 n.6 (Fla. 

1999).
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0886 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2008-SW-067-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
J. 

, J. 

16.1 or otherwise argued that he attempted to advance his case against 

the remaining defendant, we conclude that the district court was within 

its discretion when it dismissed the remaining defendant based on 

appellant's failure to hold the NRCP 16.1 case conference. See Arnold v. 

Kip, 123 Nev. 410, 414, 168 P.3d 1050, 1052 (2007) (reviewing a district 

court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss under NRCP 16.1(e) for an 

abuse of discretion); see also NRCP 16.1(g) (specifying that pro se plaintiffs 

are not excused from holding a case conference). We therefore 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

J. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge 

James Anthony Davis 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Pershing County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
In the Senate of the United States, 

February 12, 2020. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 1365) entitled ‘‘An Act to make technical corrections to the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act.’’, 

do pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 

following: 

1 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO GUAM WORLD 

2 WAR II LOYALTY RECOGNITION ACT. 

3 Title XVII of division A of Public Law 114–328 is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in section 1703(e)— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘equal to’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘not to exceed’’; and 

8 (B) by striking ‘‘covered into the Treasury 

9 as miscellaneous receipts’’ and inserting ‘‘used to 

10 reimburse the applicable appropriations’’; 
2 

† HR 1365 EAS 

1 (2) in section 1704(a) by striking ‘‘, subject to 

2 the availability of appropriations,’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘from the Claims Fund’’; and 

4 (3) by striking section 1707(a). 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 1365 

AMENDMENT
[ARTICLE] 5
[MULTIPLIER] 1
<TABLE> 
<S>                          <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                 9-MO
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]             DEC-31-1998
[PERIOD-END]                  SEP-30-1998
[CASH]                         404,665
[SECURITIES]                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                  229,451
[ALLOWANCE]                          0
[INVENTORY]                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]               640,310
[PP&E]                          69,986
[DEPRECIATION]                   7,011
[TOTAL-ASSETS]               2,827,780
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]        1,273,927
[BONDS]                         26,068
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                0
[PREFERRED]                          0
[COMMON]                         8,692
[OTHER-SE]                   1,869,073
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY] 2,827,780
[SALES]                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                16,964
[CGS]                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                    3,533
[OTHER-EXPENSES]               102,570
[LOSS-PROVISION]                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]               8,448
[INCOME-PRETAX]               (205,952)
[INCOME-TAX]                         0
<INCOME-DISCONTINUED>                0
[DISCONTINUED]                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                      0
[CHANGES]                            0

</TEXT
</DOCUMENT
</SUBMISSION


</TABLE>
Dear Stakeholder,

The Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO) is seeking candidates for the PVP Board. The term of the 

present Board will expire in May 2020. Nominations must be received on or before January 24, 2020.

PVP Board Aspects:

- Composed of 14 members that include farmers, plant breeders, seed industry experts, 

university professors, and lawyers who are involved with plant varieties and/or their use.

- The mission of the PVP Board is to provide direction to the PVP Office which ultimately 

influences the development of new plant varieties by providing an incentive (through intellectual 

property protection) to the breeders of these varieties.

- The PVP Board usually meets twice per year, with one teleconference and one physical meeting.

- Board members serve for 2 years and can be reappointed for up to 3 consecutive terms.

- Self-nominations are acceptable.

USDA encourages board membership that reflects the diversity of the individuals served by its industry. 

Diversity includes gender, race, disability, length of service, geographic location, and size and type of 

business.

In order to be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to serve on a board or committee, each 

applicant must clear all stages of the vetting process. Vetting is a comprehensive personal and 

professional background investigation that specifically includes, but is not limited to, an analysis of each 

candidate’s criminal history, bankruptcy filings, liens and judgments, affiliations and associations, 

lobbyist status, and prior involvement with USDA. This process is used to ensure that the finest 

candidates are selected to represent the interests of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Please complete the “PVP Board Background Information Form” and send it as an attachment to 

pvpomail@usda.gov on or before January 24, 2020.

Thank you.

The Plant Variety Protection Office

USDA, AMS, Science & Technology

1400 Independence Ave, S.W.

Office 4512, Mail Stop 0274
Washington, DC 20250

Phone: (202) 260-8983

Plant Variety Protection Office Website
NUMBER 13-11-00008-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

EDWARD DOUGLAS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND 

BARRY JAMES MORGAN, INDIVIDUALLY, 

AND D/B/A CONCRETE STRUCTURES, Appellants,

v.

WAYNE NEAL, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A 

MIRAGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 267th District Court 

of Calhoun County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
2

Appellants, Edward Douglas, Individually, and Barry James Morgan, Individually, 

and d/b/a Concrete Structures, attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered 

by the 267th District Court of Calhoun County, Texas, in cause number 09-02-0679. 

The trial court entered a final judgment in this cause on October 5, 2010. A 

motion for new trial was filed on November 5, 2011, and notice of appeal was filed on 

January 4, 2011. 

On January 7, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants that it appeared 

that the notice of appeal was late because the motion for new trial was untimely. 

Appellants were advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the 

date of receipt of this Court=s letter, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellants have

not filed a response to the Court=s notice. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 provides that an appeal is perfected 

when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a 

motion for new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). Where a timely motion for 

new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the 

judgment is signed. Id. Appellants’ deadline for filing the motion for new trial was 

November 4, 2010. The motion for new trial was untimely because it was filed on 

November 5, 2010. Accordingly, appellants’ notice of appeal was due to have been 

filed on or before November 4, 2010. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, 

appellants’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this 

Court=s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of 
3

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF 

JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

7th day of March, 2011.
# C_2004094EN.01001902.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione by order of that court of 6 November 2003 in the case of Aro Tubi Trafilerie S.p.A. against Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-46/04)

(2004/C 94/39)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 6 November 2003, received at the Court Registry on 6 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Aro Tubi Trafilerie S.p.A. against Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze on the following question:

Must Directive 69/335/EEC (1) concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directives 73/80/EEC (2) and 85/303/EEC (3), be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the levying of proportional registration duty on a merger through acquisition where all the share capital is owned not by the acquiring company but by the company acquired, in particular with regard to the possible existence of a restriction on the free movement of capital in this special case?

1

2

3

---

(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1969(II), p. 412

1

(2)  OJ L 103 of 18.4.1973, p. 15

2

(3)  OJ L 156 of 15.6.1985, p. 23

3

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
     QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997,
     AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         234,037
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,642,169
<ALLOWANCES>                                   238,870
<INVENTORY>                                    1,730,888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,709,032
<PP&E>                                         214,920
<DEPRECIATION>                                 162,398
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,993,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,770,634
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       101,272
<OTHER-SE>                                     405,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,993,752
<SALES>                                        3,293,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,293,785
<CGS>                                          2,249,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,249,468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               756,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             39,718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                329,626
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            329,626
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   329,626
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.12
        


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3171

___________________________

Michael Joseph Harasyn,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Gregory Edward Krause; Kathleen Anne Krause; Betsy Lou Harasyn,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: April 3, 2015

Filed: April 8, 2015

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Michael Harasyn appeals the district court’s dismissal, for lack of subject

1

matter jurisdiction, of his pro se complaint claiming his rights were violated in prior

divorce and child-custody proceedings in state court. Upon consideration of

Harasyn’s arguments on appeal, and upon careful de novo review of the district

court’s dismissal, see Edwards v. City of Jonesboro, 645 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir.

2011), we agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, see

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005), and we

find nothing improper in the proceedings below, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Minn.

Majority v. Manksy, 708 F.3d 1051, 1056 (8th Cir. 2013).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable MichaelJ. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations ofthe Honorable

Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-