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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 444 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 444

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 29, 2015.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3495) to amend title XIX of the Social 
Security Act to allow for greater State flexibility with respect to excluding 
providers who are involved in abortions. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) 
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote 
to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented 
to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 
legislative day of October 1, 2015.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Frank Made Sportswear, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Charles W. Carvin Co., Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

May 21, 1959.

*875
      *Weil, Gotshal & Manges (Gabriel Kaslow*and *Alan E. Bandler*of counsel), for appellant.

*Sidney S. Levine*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

While the court below decided correctly that

there is an issue of fact with respect to the making of an agreement to arbitrate, it was error to postpone disposition of that issue until the trial of the main action. An agreement to arbitrate is not a defense to the action but only ground for staying it *(American Reserve Ins. Co.*v. *China Ins. Co.,*297 N. Y. 822). Since section 1450 of the Civil Practice Act specifically provides that when, as here, a substantial issue as to the making of a contract to arbitrate arises, the court or a judge “ shall proceed immediately to the trial thereof ’ ’, the court should have ordered the immediate trial of the issue.

The order should be modified to direct the immediate trial of the issue whether the parties entered into a contract to arbitrate, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Concur — Hoestadter, J. P., Hecht and Aurelio, JJ.

Order modified, etc.
#### Frisbee v. State

17870

11/20/96

Affirmed
#### Finley *v.*Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, Appellant.

*Practice, O. P.*— Judgment *n. o. v.*— Dismissal *of motion.*

It is not error to dismiss motions for binding instructions and for judgment non obstante veredicto, if plaintiff is entitled to any damages for the injury of which he complains.

Argued Jan. 8, 1919.

Appeal, No. 8, Jan. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 3082, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Thomas J. Finley v. Philadelphia Bapid Transit Company.

Before Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling and Simpson, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Barratt, P. J.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $4,820.96. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was in refusing motion of defendant for judgment n. o. v.

*404January 20, 1919:

*Bernard J. O’Connell,*for appellant,

cited: Erbe v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 256 Pa. 567; Cawley v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 44 Pa. Superior Ct. 340; Reddington. v. Philadelphia, 253 Pa. 390; Stern v. Reading, 255 Pa. 96.

*Francis M. McAdams,*with him *William H. Wilson,*for appellee,

.cited: Morgan y. Westmoreland Electric Co., 213 Pa. 151; Madden v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 236 Pa. 104; Ferry v. P. r! T. Co., 232 Pa. 403; Tucker y. P., C., C. & St. L. R. R. Co., 227 Pa. 66.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Simpson,

Plaintiff sued the defendant company to recover damages for injuries received by him as a result of the sudden starting of one of its cars while he was endeavoring to enter it as a passenger. The verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals, assigning as error only the refusal of its point asking for binding instructions in its favor, and the dismissal of its motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

In this court defendant’s counsel frankly admits “that the appellee was thrown by a trolley car under negligent circumstances must be accepted as a proven fact,” and does not allege contributory negligence. His only claim is that the evidence did not justify the conclusion that “the wrongdoer’s act produced the injuries complained of.”

Admittedly the record shows that at least some of the things complained of were the result of defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff was thrown from the car negligently ; was rendered unconscious; as defendant’s motorman testified, plaintiff was found an hour later at the place where he alleges he had endeavored to boar,d the car; and, two days later, when he fully recovered consciousness, he found the fingérs of his hand had been cut off in the hospital to which he had been taken by defendant’s employees. It is clear, therefore, that for the *405wrong done Mm lie was entitled to some damages, whether or not the injury to his hand was the result of defendant’s negligence. Hence the point asking for Mnding in-, structions, and the motion for judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto were properly dismissed, for each is predicated upon the claim that plaintiff is entitled to no damages.

The judgment is affirmed.
# C_2019103EN.01004201.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)

(Case T-427/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Duty to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: André Geske (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: R. Albrecht, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino and S. Hanne, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 (Case R 2603/2017-1), relating to the application for registration of the figurative mark SATISFYERMEN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr André Geske to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr André Geske to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL ROBERTS, a.k.a. Kedrin 

Kizzee,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

RANDY L. TEWS, Warden,*

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-55354

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-06595-GAF

MEMORANDUM**

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2015***

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Michael Roberts appeals pro se from the district court’s 

 

* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(C)(2), Randy L. 

Tews is substituted for his predecessor, R. Phillip Guttierez as Warden.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Roberts’s 

request for oral argument is denied.

FILED

APR 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-55354

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the computation 

of his custody credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we 

affirm. 

Roberts contends that he is entitled to credit towards his federal sentence for 

the time he served between February 22, 2000, and January 7, 2003. This court 

reviews the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition de novo. See 

Schleining v. Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court 

correctly found that Roberts was serving time on a state sentence during the 

relevant time period, thereby precluding credit towards his federal sentence for the 

same period. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 

(1992). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000880052
<NAME> TOWNE FINANCIAL CORP/OH
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,478
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             159
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     14,906
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,713
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            13,521
<LOANS>                                         72,512
<ALLOWANCE>                                        250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,300
<DEPOSITS>                                      87,227
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,356
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,215
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,704
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           209
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 108,300
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,511
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  457
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    51
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,019
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,104
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,289
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              730
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        6
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   7
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    285
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         285
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .85
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.90
<LOANS-NON>                                        101
<LOANS-PAST>                                       351
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   244
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  250
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               250
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019025EN.01002302.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 October 2018 — DN v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-672/18)

(2019/C 25/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DN

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the provisions of Article 8 of the Directive of 19 October 2009 (1) be interpreted as precluding different bases of assessment and rate rules being used to tax the capital gain arising on a transfer of securities received in exchange and the deferred capital gain? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the provisions of Article 8 of the Directive of 19 October 2009 (1) be interpreted as precluding different bases of assessment and rate rules being used to tax the capital gain arising on a transfer of securities received in exchange and the deferred capital gain?

| 2. | Must those provisions be interpreted in particular as precluding a situation in which reductions of the basis of assessment intended to take into account the period for which securities have been held do not apply to the deferred capital gain, having regard to the fact that that basis of assessment rule did not apply on the date on which the capital gain arose, but they do apply to the capital gain on a transfer of the securities received in exchange, taking into account the date of the exchange instead of the date on which the securities given in exchange were acquired? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must those provisions be interpreted in particular as precluding a situation in which reductions of the basis of assessment intended to take into account the period for which securities have been held do not apply to the deferred capital gain, having regard to the fact that that basis of assessment rule did not apply on the date on which the capital gain arose, but they do apply to the capital gain on a transfer of the securities received in exchange, taking into account the date of the exchange instead of the date on which the securities given in exchange were acquired?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member States (OJ 2009 L 310, p. 34).

---
#### Doe, In Re: Jane (DOB 1/11/91)

18152

4/22/97

Affirmed
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael W. Rogers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|    |  |                         
|--- |  | ------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /S/    MICHAEL W. ROGERS
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer 

December 11, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       8,124,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,065,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 10,810,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            51,747,000<F1>
<PP&E>                                      30,140,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (17,962,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             207,358,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,970,000
<BONDS>                                     20,214,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 131,923,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               207,358,000
<SALES>                                     68,558,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            68,558,000
<CGS>                                       52,092,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               52,092,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,503,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             528,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,609,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   740,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            869,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   869,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08    
<FN>
<F1>OTHER CURRENT ASSETS--1,748,000
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 481 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 481

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 21, 2015.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1937) to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and 
mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to United States economic 
and national security and manufacturing competitiveness. The first reading of 
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill 
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. 
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE AUDITED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,549
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  338,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                    65,561
<INVENTORY>                                     29,336
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               354,506
<PP&E>                                         894,935
<DEPRECIATION>                                 216,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,490,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,485
<BONDS>                                        617,377
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           755
<OTHER-SE>                                     621,511
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,490,953
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,572,352
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,166,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               112,988
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               106,733
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                145,529
<INCOME-TAX>                                    58,849
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             86,680
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,680
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12
        

</TABLE>
Chapter 2.4.4. – Infection with Marteilia refringens

Annex 4. Item 6.1. – Usage of glossary definitions: ‘Aquatic Animal Health Services’, ‘Competent Authority’ and ‘Veterinary Authority’

WOAH *Aquatic Manual* 2025	8
19760

#### State v. Cromwell

Affirmed
NVSL Brucella ovis Proficiency Test 2022

Approved Laboratories

State Laboratory Test

1 California California Animal Health & Food Safety Laboratory

620 West Health Sciences Dr.

Davis CA 95616

iELISA

2 Colorado Colorado State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory - Western Slope 

Animal Diagnostic Laboratory

3164 B 1/2 Road

Grand Junction CO 81503

iELISA

3 Iowa USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratory – DBRL – Serology 

1920 Dayton Ave 

Ames IA 50010

iELISA

4 North Dakota Veterinary Diagnostic Lab

4035 19th Ave N

Fargo ND 58102

iELISA

5 South Dakota ADRDL, Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences Dept., South Dakota 

State University

1155 North Campus Drive

Box 2175

Brookings SD 57007

iELISA

6 Texas Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory – Canyon

3209 Russell Long Blvd

Canyon TX 79016

iELISA

7 Utah Spanish Fork Branch

514 West 3000 North

Spanish Fork UT 84660

iELISA

Utah Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory

950 East 1400 North

Logan UT 84341

iELISA

8 Washington Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory

100 Dairy Rd, 155 N Bustad Hall

Pullman WA 99174

iELISA

9 Wyoming Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory

1174 Snowy Range Rd

Laramie WY 82072

iELISA
25838

#### State v. Rodenhurst

Affirmed