alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hoaomblo charley LoOkhart 

stat* TreasuTer 

Aurtla, Texar 

D*u 81rt 

reeeat dstm with tha 

4 "Dsolaration of 

the lnstrumat 

I of Artisle 9049e, 

f l 8 fo llo wsr 

We0 pro vided, 

in the offior of the County 

gietration Law8 QZ thir 

at no tax aball bo levied 

on lnetsments aeourtng an tmount of Two 

IIundred ($200.00) Dollars, or Isem. biter '- 

the sffoativo dats of thin AOt, eroept a8 

hereinafter provided, QO suoh fnrtrunent shall 

be filed or rooorded by any County Qlerk in 

thfs State until there ias6 b,esn atiixod to 

auuh iastrumants &unps in aoaordanae wfth 

the pm~lsllons of thlkil 8WttQll~ * * ** 
41 

Eonoreblo War118 Lookhert, Page 2 

The instrument under conaideretlcn is not emong 

those ttpe0lri0aiip named. Hence, if It la to be taxed, it 

must be by virtue of the alause levying the tex upon “all 

euoh inatruaente of a elntilar nflture.R In other words, a 

lien Intereat must be created by the instrument before it 

ir subject to the tax. 

Se are of the oplnicn that the instrument is not 

eubjeat to the tax. The inetrurnent deoleree that the 

Houeing: Authority of the City of ‘J8aoo holds oerteln described 

lend In trust for the benerlt or proepeotlve bondholder8 

and the United Sttitee ?iousing Authority. The interest 

granted is the right to require the +Y’iaoo Koueing Authority 

to refrain frcm dfspoelng of the property exoept under 

oertain olroumstanoes and to maintain and operate the 

hourlug projeotin a oertain menner. Thue, it is 88811 

that no lien interest is created. The lnrtrument $6 

merelyr, ae lte title indicates, a WDeclarstion of Truet.w 

our view ie further etrongthened by 8 paragraph 

fn the lnetrument, which we quote as r0n0w8t 

“In no event shell thie deolaretlon oi 

trust be oonetrued a8 oonferring upon the holdsrr 

or any or the Bond8 issued In pureuanoe or said 

Reeolutlon, or 0r any of the ooupone appertalnlng 

thereto, the remedy of foreoloeun or any other 

remedy pureuant to wfiioh they or any 02 them may 

oaum the above-deebribed ,property to be eold or 

the title of the Authority thereto to be divested 

or iorfelted.n 

In view or the loregoing you ere r88peOtfully advired that the deeorlbed nBebleration of Truet* fa not subject 

to the etemp tax Imposed by krtiol.8 90498, Vernon’8 Annotated 

Civil Statutes. 

Very tNly yours 

kTTCRW CF,NE~UAL CF T3XhS
# 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 III

ENHANCED COOPERATION

ENHANCED COOPERATION

Article 329

(ex Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a TEC)

(ex Articles 27a

e

b

a

1.   Member States which wish to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in one of the areas covered by the Treaties, with the exception of fields of exclusive competence and the common foreign and security policy, shall address a request to the Commission, specifying the scope and objectives of the enhanced cooperation proposed. The Commission may submit a proposal to the Council to that effect. In the event of the Commission not submitting a proposal, it shall inform the Member States concerned of the reasons for not doing so.

Authorisation to proceed with the enhanced cooperation referred to in the first subparagraph shall be granted by the Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

2.   The request of the Member States which wish to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves within the framework of the common foreign and security policy shall be addressed to the Council. It shall be forwarded to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who shall give an opinion on whether the enhanced cooperation proposed is consistent with the Union's common foreign and security policy, and to the Commission, which shall give its opinion in particular on whether the enhanced cooperation proposed is consistent with other Union policies. It shall also be forwarded to the European Parliament for information.

Authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation shall be granted by a decision of the Council acting unanimously.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1221 

To amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to 

reaffirm the authority of the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 

Ms. PINGREE (for herself, Mr. HOYER, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. 

DELAURO, Mr. POCAN, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. 

CUELLAR, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. PANETTA, 

Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization 

Act of 1994 to reaffirm the authority of the Under 

Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and 

Economics, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘Agriculture Research In5 tegrity Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1221 IH

1 SEC. 2. REAFFIRMING AUTHORITY OF THE UNDER SEC2 RETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR RESEARCH, 

3 EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS. 

4 Subtitle F of the Department of Agriculture Reorga5 nization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971 et seq.) is amended 

6 by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 253. REAFFIRMING AUTHORITY OF THE UNDER SEC8 RETARY. 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the authority 

10 specified in Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953 (5 U.S.C. 

11 App.; 7 U.S.C. 2201 note) or any other provision of Fed12 eral law relating to the authority of the Secretary, includ13 ing section 296— 

14 ‘‘(1) the Agricultural Research Service, the 

15 Economic Research Service, the National Agricul16 tural Statistics Service, and the National Institute 

17 for Food and Agriculture, and any successor agen18 cies shall be within the research, education, and eco19 nomics mission area of the Department; 

20 ‘‘(2) the authority to administer such agencies 

21 is vested in the Under Secretary for Research, Edu22 cation, and Economics; and 

23 ‘‘(3) such authority may not be vested in the 

24 head of another agency or office within the Depart25 ment. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1221 IH

1 ‘‘(b) LOCATION.—The Secretary shall locate each 

2 agency referred to in subsection (a)(1) and the majority 

3 of the staff of each such agency within the National Cap4 ital Region to ensure maximum coordination and inter5 action with each other such agency, with the agencies de6 livering food and agricultural programs and services of the 

7 Department, and with other Federal Government science 

8 agencies (including science agencies of the Department).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibits
Air Canada’s A319 Aircraft 

DEP

Seats

Business Class 14Economy Class 106
P oposed Sched le

DEP

DOM CNX INTL CNX INTL CNX 

Proposed Schedule

YCD ‐ Nanaimo BC NRT ‐ Tokyo NRT ‐ Tokyo 

YCG ‐ Castlegar BC ICN ‐ Seoul ICN ‐ Seoul 

YKA ‐ Kamloops BC PVG ‐ Shanghai PVG ‐ ShanghYLW ‐ Kelowna BC PEK ‐ Beijing PEK ‐ Beijing 

YPR ‐ Prince Rupert BC SYD ‐ Sydney HKG ‐ Hong Ko

YXC ‐ Cbk ran rook BC YVR DCA DCA YVR SYD ‐ S dy ney YXJ ‐ Fort St John DEP TIME ARR Time Gauge DEP TIME ARR Time 

YXS ‐ Prince George BC 1335 2135 A319 700 945 

YXT ‐ Terrace BC 

YXY ‐ Whitehorse YT 

YYD ‐ Smithers Smithers BC YYF ‐ Penticton BC 

YYJ ‐ Victoria BC 

YZP ‐ Sandspit BC 

YYC‐ Calgary AB 

YEG ‐ Edmonton AB 

Elapsed time:

YVR‐DCA: 5:00DCA YVR 5 45 DCA 

‐YVR: 5:45
Air Canada’s Proposed Service Will Re

DEP

Air Canada s Proposed Service Will Re

Travel Time to/from Vancouver

Non-stop service will reduce travel time by 1 hour and mi t E tb d d 1 h d 39 i t W tb 

inutes Eastbound and 1 hour and 39 minutes Westb

over one-stop options:

Ex YVR Ex WAS

AC Direct: 5:00UA over ORD: 6:41

AC Direct: 5:45UA over ORD: 7:

DL over MSP: 6:56AC over YYZ: 7:02

DL over MSP: 7:2AS over SEA: 7:5

AS over SEA: 7:09AA over DFW: 7:45

AC over YYZ: 8:0AA over DFW: 8:

*Times displayed are the shortest times for each carrier

Based on OAG PlaNet run connection builder for Summer 2012 (Aug)
Air Canada Domestic Connections 

Behind/Beyond Vancouver 

Dom

YCD

YCG

YKAYLW

YPR 

YXC YXJ YXS YXT 

YXY 

YYDYYF 

YYJ ‐ 

YZP 

YYC‐ YEGYMM
P oposed Se ice ith Connection

DEP

P

roposed Service 

with Connection

Be

PE

ICNR

HK

PVSY
#### Lavina B. Miro, as Administratrix of the Estate of Bernice Bowie, Deceased, Respondent, v Branford House, Inc., et al., Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, et al., Defendants. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about February 28, 1991, which granted third-party defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 1010 for an order severing the third-party action from the main action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS court properly exercised its discretion in severing the third-party medical malpractice action from the main action, a personal injury action seeking damages for conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death stemming from the alleged negligence of defendants/third-party plaintiffs, among others, whose building water system was claimed to have scalded the decedent, contributing to her death 17 days thereafter. The commencement of the third-party action on the eve of trial of the main action, which was commenced more than *SVi*years earlier, would inevitably cause plaintiff prejudice if trial were to be further delayed in order to convene a medical malpractice panel and to complete discovery in the subsidiary malpractice action *(Cortez v New York City Hous. Auth.,*163 AD2d 13). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000015511
<NAME> THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COOMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      702
<ALLOWANCES>                                        70
<INVENTORY>                                        205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,197
<PP&E>                                          23,895
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,089
<BONDS>                                          4,813
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,199
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,366<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,600<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,490
<INCOME-TAX>                                       561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>RESTATEMENT REFLECTED HEREIN IS THE RESULT OF RECLASSIFICATIONS TO PRIOR
PERIODS' FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO CONFORM TO THE CURRENT PERIOD PRESENTATION.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-71286, No. 33-51377, No. 33-38501, and No. 33-29801 on Forms S-3, and No.
33-61035 and No. 33-39873 on Form S-8 of Cascade Natural Gas Corporation, of our
reports dated November 1, 1996, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation for the nine months ended September 30, 1996.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Seattle, Washington
December 16, 1996


                                       53
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Randall K. Gausman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tut Systems Inc.,on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial conditionand results of operations of Tut Systems, Inc.

 

 
|                   | By:    | /s/ Randall K. Gausman                                                                                 |   |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Randall K. Gausman  Vice President, Finance and Administration,  Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |   |
|                   |   |                                                                                                   |   |
| Date: May 7, 2004 |   |                                                                                                   |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1168

RICHARD A. CAPELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

C. LEE CARTER, III; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 

SAFETY; YORK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; TFC DW JENKINS; 

YORK COUNTY DEPUTY ALDRIDGE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

TROOPER SCDPS; DEPUTY YORK COUNTY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (3:13-cv-00586-TLW)

Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Capell, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Matthews, 

RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Richard A. Capell appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his complaint raising claims under Title II of the 

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 

(2006), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 

(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Capell v. Carter, No. 3:13-cv-00586-TLW (D.S.C. 

Jan. 16, 2014). We deny Capell’s requests for video evidence, 

for appointment of counsel, to seal his case, for waiver of 

fees, and to serve documents electronically. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CIK>           0000016343
<NAME>          PATRIOT AMERICAN HOSPITALITY, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          89,885                  20,360
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,589                  14,458
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                   1,306
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                       5,176,977               2,083,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                 216,548                  67,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,749,206               2,321,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         54                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,135                     733
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,466,670                 908,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,749,206               2,321,105
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               595,410                 185,554
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               390,335                 136,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             245,205                  51,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,404)                   3,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,742)                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (30,560)                 (2,534)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,888)                 (2,152)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.52)                   (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.73)                   (.03)
        

</TABLE>
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 16, 2015 519613 

________________________________

SUNOCO, INC., et al.,

Appellants,

v

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JMR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: February 19, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________

Saul Ewing, LLP, Princeton, New Jersey (John P. Englert of

counsel), for appellants.

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, LLP, Albany (Margaret J. Gillis

of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.),

entered May 8, 2014 in Albany County, which granted defendant's

motion to dismiss the complaint.

Order affirmed, upon the opinion of Justice Richard M.

Platkin.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.
-2- 519613 

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
# C_2016203EN.01001901.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/19

---

Article 33

Each Member State shall lay down the appropriate provisions, whether by legislation, regulation or administrative action, to ensure compliance with the basic standards which have been established and shall take the necessary measures with regard to teaching, education and vocational training.

The Commission shall make appropriate recommendations for harmonising the provisions applicable in this field in the Member States.

To this end, the Member States shall communicate to the Commission the provisions applicable at the date of entry into force of this Treaty and any subsequent draft provisions of the same kind.

Any recommendations the Commission may wish to issue with regard to such draft provisions shall be made within three months of the date on which such draft provisions are communicated.

---
# C_2016202EN.01013801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/138 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/138

---

Article 201

(ex Article 185 TEC)

(ex Article 185 TEC)

If the level of the duties applicable to goods from a third country on entry into a country or territory is liable, when the provisions of Article 200(1) have been applied, to cause deflections of trade to the detriment of any Member State, the latter may request the Commission to propose to the other Member States the measures needed to remedy the situation.

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

NO. 03-15-00180-CV

Rebecca Mae Blount, Appellant

v.

Yellow Orchid, LLC, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-15-000923, HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss her appeal. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: April 14, 2015