alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 5

SECTION 5

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Article 275

The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to the provisions relating to the common foreign and security policy nor with respect to acts adopted on the basis of those provisions.

However, the Court shall have jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 40 of the Treaty on European Union and to rule on proceedings, brought in accordance with the conditions laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of this Treaty, reviewing the legality of decisions providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons adopted by the Council on the basis of Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union.

---
# C_2016202EN.01009701.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/97

---

Article 120

(ex Article 98 TEC)

(ex Article 98 TEC)

Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union, as defined in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, and in the context of the broad guidelines referred to in Article 121(2). The Member States and the Union shall act in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, favouring an efficient allocation of resources, and in compliance with the principles set out in Article 119.

---
#### Christine F. Pizzolorusso et al., Appellants, v Incorporated Village of Westhampton Beach, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered January 10, 1990, as granted the motion of the defendant Incorporated Village of Westhampton Beach for summary *717judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the record demonstrates that the accident which caused the injuries occurred within the geographic confines of the Town of Southampton, and not in the Incorporated Village of Westhampton Beach (hereinafter the Village). Accordingly, the Village owed the plaintiffs no duty of care to maintain that section of the road on which they were injured. Furthermore, the record is devoid of any proof that the Village assumed any duty to insure the plaintiffs’ safety beyond its borders or that any special relationship existed giving rise to any special duty *(see, Sostre v City of New York Hous. Auth.,*150 AD2d 766; *Bishop v Bostick,*141 AD2d 487). Thus, there can be no liability on the part of the Village predicated upon its alleged negligence in the performance of its governmental duties *(see, Merced v City of New York,*75 NY2d 798; *Isaksson v Rulffes,*135 AD2d 611; *Browne v Town of Hempstead,*110 AD2d 102). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 843 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 843

   To prohibit treatment of gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
        Michigan as endangered species, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2015

  Mr. Kline (for himself, Mr. Benishek, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. 
   Moolenaar, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Duffy) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit treatment of gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
        Michigan as endangered species, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Western Great Lakes Wolf Management 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the States of 
        Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
            (2) Wolf.--The term ``wolf'' means any species, subspecies, 
        or population segment of Canis lupus.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON TREATMENT OF WOLVES IN MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, AND 
              MICHIGAN UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973.

    Any wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Michigan shall not be treated 
under any status of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.), including as an endangered species, a threatened species, an 
essential experimental population, or a nonessential experimental 
population.

SEC. 4. STATE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.

    (a) State Management Authority.--Each State shall have exclusive 
jurisdiction over the management of wolves within the borders of that 
State.
    (b) Protection by States.--Nothing in this Act shall preclude any 
State from providing protections to wolves equivalent to those 
protections provided by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.).
    (c) Reimbursement by States.--Nothing in this Act shall preclude 
any State from reimbursing the owner of livestock for any loss of 
livestock that results from depredation by wolves, or that derives from 
wolves, that were introduced into the wild.
                                 <all>
```
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SHAMEKA BANKS; TIMOTHY

JOHNSON; CAROL JONES, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES;

BACONE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE;

MUSKOGEE REGIONAL MEDICAL

CENTER, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-7067

(D.C. No. 6:14-CV-00100-RAW)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

While attending Bacone Christian College, Timothy Johnson was sent to

Muskogee Regional Medical Center to undergo psychiatric treatment. No one

contacted Mr. Johnson’s mother, Shameka Banks, or his grandmother, Carol

Jones. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Banks, and Ms. Jones allege that Bacone, MRMC, and

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
American Baptist Churches should’ve notified the family about Mr. Johnson’s

hospitalization. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a

claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 570 (2007). 

On appeal, the family members insist their case is strong but do not directly

address any of the dispositive problems the district court identified in their

pleadings, let alone point out any defects in that court’s judgment. While this

court takes seriously its obligation to construe liberally pro se filings like those

here, it will not invent arguments for reversal that a litigant does not even touch

upon. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th

Cir. 2005). This court “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the

litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id. Pro

se litigants, moreover, are not excused from following the same rules of

procedure that govern other litigants. Id. The family members’ briefs don’t come

close to complying with Fed. R. App. P. 28 — the rule governing the form and

content of appellate briefs. The briefs fail to list any issues for appeal, don’t

explain why the court erred in dismissing their claims, and lack any citations to

authority whatsoever. 

- 2 -
The judgment is affirmed.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

.

- 3 -
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 21, 2015

No. 04-14-00890-CV

Christopher James COLEMAN,

Appellant

v.

DOVER MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-01340

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On April 14, 2015, this court was informed that the parties have settled. It is therefore 

ORDERED that this appeal is reinstated on the docket of this court. 

Appellant is hereby ORDERED to file either an agreed or unopposed motion to dismiss 

this appeal no later than May 1, 2015. All other appellate deadlines are hereby suspended.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1472 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1472

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To rename the Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice, 
          Nebraska, as the Homestead National Historical Park.

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

SECTION 1. HOMESTEAD NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

    (a) In General.--The first section of the Act of March 19, 1936 (16 
U.S.C. 450u), is amended by striking ``designated'' and all that 
follows through the end and inserting ``designated the `Homestead 
National Historical Park'.''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the unit of the National 
Park System known as ``The Homestead National Monument of America'' 
shall be considered to be a reference to the ``Homestead National 
Historical Park''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 20, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1472

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To rename the Homestead National Monument of America near Beatrice, 
          Nebraska, as the Homestead National Historical Park.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Butler
Manufacturing Company Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended
December 31, 1999, and Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1999, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statement.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000015840
<NAME> BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          52,951
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  120,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,674
<INVENTORY>                                     59,987
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               270,988
<PP&E>                                         239,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 405,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          174,974
<BONDS>                                         57,021<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,623
<OTHER-SE>                                     199,229<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   405,857
<SALES>                                        973,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               973,153<F3>
<CGS>                                          801,144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  801,144
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               134,442<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,514<F5>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,572
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,174
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,340
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,834
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,834
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.63
<FN>
<F1>Reflects long-term debt, less current maturities.
<F2>Reflects other stockholders' equity before deduction of $52.3 million treasury
stock and foreign currency translation adjustments.
<F3>Reflects net sales plus net international joint venture income less.
<F4>Consists of selling, general, and administrative expense.
<F5>Includes additional restructuring charge of $1.5 million recorded in the first
quarter of 1999.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### SKYLINE LEASING, a Utah Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DATACAP, a Division of International Computer Systems, Inc., a Utah Corporation, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. 13971.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 9, 1976.

Kay M. Lewis, of Jensen & Lewis, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.

Lorin N. Pace, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a non jury judgment, incident to a computer equipment lease, where defendant Barnes was adjudged liable as guarantor. Affirmed with costs to Skyline.

The only parts of the record we have before us are the pleadings and the lease, where Skyline was the Lessor and defendant International was Lessee. Barnes, according to the record after discovery process, and presumably from the testimony, none of which latter anyone bothered to designate or refer to here, was found and *513decreed by the trial court to have been signatory to the lease, as an individual and' not as an agent of the corporation.

There was considerable talk in the defendant’s brief about claimed evidence that is not before us and about statutes claimed to be pertinent as a defense mechanism, but which were not specially pleaded, and about which we do not concern ourselves for the first time on appeal.

ELLETT, CROCKETT, TUCKETT, and MAUGHAN, J J., concur.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #20058 and #20059; Kansas Disaster Number KS-20000]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4747-DR), dated 10/26/2023. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, Tornadoes, and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         07/14/2023 through 07/21/2023.
 DATES: Issued on 10/26/2023. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/26/2023. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/26/2024.
 ADDRESSES: *Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*
                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/26/2023, disaster loan applications for Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal 
                    *https://lending.sba.gov*
                     or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at 
                    *disastercustomerservice@sba.gov*
                     or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Allen, Barton, Clark, Comanche, Edwards, Finney, Ford, Greeley, Johnson, Kearny, Pawnee, Rawlins, Rice, Russell, Stafford, Thomas, Wallace, Wichita, Woodson, Wyandotte The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375( print page 82940)*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 200586 and for economic injury is 200590. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Francisco Sánchez, Jr., Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.


[FR Doc. 2023-26010 Filed 11-24-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Tony D. Whitaker, certify that: 

1.          I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kentucky First Federal Bancorp;

2.          Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.          The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.          The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

| Date: February 14, 2007 | /s/ Tony D. Whitaker                              |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                                   |
|                    | Tony D. Whitaker                                  |
|                    | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
# EUR-Lex - 21994A1223(24) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 21994A1223(24)

**Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1986- 1994) - Annex 4 - Arrangement regarding bovine meat - Annex 1 - Draft exchange of letters between Uruguay and the European Community (WTO) Unofficial translation **

*
Official Journal L 336 , 23/12/1994 P. 0308 - 0308 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 38 P. 0310 Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 38 P. 0310 *

DRAFT EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN URUGUAY AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

The European Community agrees to include in its final offer on market access under the Uruguay Round an additional quantity of two thousand metric tonnes of high-quality beef (0201.30.00 - 0206.10.85 meat of bovine animals, fresh or chilled: 0202.30.90 - 206 29.91 meat of bovine animals, frozen) from Uruguay.

The European Community and Uruguay agree that the provision contained in the Tokyo Round agreement according to which the European Community was prepared to envisage the possibility of Uruguay being able to export additional annual quantities of high-quality beef if the overall quota for such cuts was not fully used by other beneficiary countries shall cease to apply.

The abovementioned provision shall cease to apply on the same date that the additional quantity of two thousand metric tonnes is implemented.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 4, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-2211 Lower Tribunal No. 18-742-A-K

________________ 

### Jason Robinson , Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge. David M. Lamos (Ft. Pierce), for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.