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

House Calendar No. 6 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 70 

[Report No. 114–13] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 596) to repeal the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions 

in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2015 

Mr. BURGESS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 596) to repeal 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and 

health care-related provisions in the Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 596) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

4 Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care 

5 and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 70 RH 

1 purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 

2 bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report of 

3 the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 

4 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 

5 be considered as read. All points of order against provi6 sions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 

7 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 

8 amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 

9 passage without intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes 

10 of debate equally divided among and controlled by the re11 spective chairs and ranking minority members of the Com12 mittees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and 

13 Commerce, and Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to 

14 recommit with or without instructions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

House Calendar No. 6 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 70 

[Report No. 114–13] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 596) 

Act of 2010, and for other purposes. the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Care Act and health care-related provisions in to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable 

FEBRUARY 2, 2015 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2020230EN.01002501.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (Representation of a curved and angled line)

(Case T-615/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved and angled line - Earlier EU figurative mark representing the capital letter D and earlier international figurative mark (D) representing an angled line - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 230/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: A. Parassina and A. Giovannardi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL (Elche, Spain) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and T. Austen, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of EUIPO of 3 August 2018 (Case R 2657/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Diesel and Sprinter megacentros del deporte.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2018 (Case R 2657/2017-5) in so far as it concerns the earlier mark No 583708 with regard to ‘men and women’s denim jeans’ and ‘footwear’ in Class 25; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2018 (Case R 2657/2017-5) in so far as it concerns the earlier mark No 583708 with regard to ‘men and women’s denim jeans’ and ‘footwear’ in Class 25;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Diesel SpA, EUIPO and Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Diesel SpA, EUIPO and Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.

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

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
  FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 30, 1995 AND THE
  CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 30, 1995
  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                            40,137
<SECURITIES>                                      28,800 
<RECEIVABLES>                                     63,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                       6,832
<INVENTORY>                                       44,169
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 196,932
<PP&E>                                            88,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                    45,693
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   250,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             59,789
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                              22
<OTHER-SE>                                       186,344 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     250,336
<SALES>                                          374,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 374,147 
<CGS>                                            311,891
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    311,891
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  41,379
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (23,028)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (10,593)        
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (12,435)  
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (12,435)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.57)  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Anoka Air, Inc., et al 

Complainant, 

v. FAA Docket No. 16-11-12 

Metropolitan Airports Commission 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to October 30, 2015 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in 

this case. 

Rlmdall S. Fiertz 

director of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Steven M. Taber, Esq. 

Taber Law Group 

l3 Atlanta 

Irvine, CA 92620 

Facsimile: (714) 707-4282 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Thomas W. Anderson, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Metropolitan Airports Commission 

6040 28th A venue South 

Minneapolis, MN 55450 

Facsimile: (612) 726-5306 

Pablo 0. Niiesch, Esq. 

Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 

1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Facsimile: (202) 393-2866 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, A CO-l 00 

~~·· Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 21

             Subsidiaries of Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc.
                              At December 31, 2001

         (The state of incorporation or organization of each subsidiary
                          is Virginia, except as noted)


A.       Direct Subsidiaries

         CRIT-SC, Inc.
         CRIT-SC, LLC
         CRIT Special, Inc.
         CRIT Special II, Inc.
         CRIT Special III, Inc.
         CRIT-VA, Inc.
         CRIT-VA II, Inc.
         CRIT-VA III, Inc.
         CRIT-VA IV, Inc.
         CRIT-VA V, Inc.
         Cornerstone Acquisition Company
         Cornerstone NC Operating Limited Partnership
         CRIT General, Inc.
         CRIT Holdings, L.P.


B.       Indirect Subsidiaries (held through direct subsidiaries or other
         indirect subsidiaries)

         Apple General, Inc.
         Apple Limited, Inc.
         Apple REIT Limited Partnership
         Apple REIT II Limited Partnership
         Apple REIT III Limited Partnership
         Apple REIT IV Limited Partnership
         Apple REIT V Limited Partnership
         Apple REIT VI Limited Partnership
         Apple REIT VII Limited Partnership

         CRIT-Cornerstone Limited Partnership
         CRIT-NC, LLC
         CRIT-NC II, LLC*
         CRIT-NC III, LLC*
         CRIT-NC IV, LLC*

         CAC Special General, Inc.
         CAC Special Limited, Inc.
         CAC Limited Partnership
         CAC II Special General, Inc.
         CAC II Special Limited, Inc.
         CAC II Limited Partnership
         CAC III Special General, Inc.
         CAC III Special Limited, Inc.
         CAC III Limited Partnership
         CAC IV Special General, Inc.
         CAC IV Special Limited, Inc.
         CAC IV Limited Partnership
         CAC V Special General, Inc.
         CAC V Special Limited, Inc.
         CAC V Limited Partnership
         CAC VI Special General, Inc.
         CAC VI Special Limited, Inc.
         CAC VI Limited Partnership

         St. Andrews Place Apartments, LLC**
         Trinity Commons Apartments, LLC**
         Timber Crest Apartments, LLC**
         St. Andrews Place II, LLC**
         Trinity Commons II, LLC**
         Autumn Park Apartments, LLC**
         Legacy Park Apartments, LLC**

*   State of organization is Delaware.
**  State of organization is North Carolina.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Plant and Plant Product Export

Certificates

Last Modified: 

Print

We help U.S. exporters by providing plant health inspection and certification for

plants and plant products being shipped to foreign countries. Required by importing

countries, these certificates attest that products are pest- and disease-free.

What is a Phytosanitary Certificate?

A phytosanitary certificate is used to certify when a plant or plant product meets all

the following:

Has been inspected per appropriate procedures

Is considered to be free from certain pests

Conforms to the current phytosanitary regulations of the importing country

A phytosanitary certificate for reexport is used when foreign-origin plants or plant

products—that entered the United States with a valid phytosanitary certificate—are

being exported from the United States. This document certifies that the product:

Is considered to conform to the current phytosanitary regulations of the

importing country based on the original foreign phytosanitary certificate, an
additional inspection, or both

Has not been subjected to the risk of infestation during storage

Please note there are user fees associated with obtaining these certificates, which

vary based on the Federal, State, or county authority conducting the inspection and

issuing the certificate.

You can read about the receiving country’s requirements for phytosanitary

certification of your plant or plant product in the Phytosanitary Export Database

(PExD).

If you're unsure whether you should apply for a phytosanitary certificate, contact an

Export Certification Specialist.

How To Obtain a Phytosanitary Certificate

First, contact your State's Export Certification Specialist.

Export Certification

APHIS has Certification Specialists nationwide with expertise in export programs for

plants and plant products. Contact the specialist in your State for questions about

requirements for exporting commodities to another country.

- Select a State - ▾

Loading...

Plant and Plant Product Export Certificates Contacts

Next, work with your authorized certification official (ACO) to

get the necessary inspections and apply for a phytosanitary

certificate.

The ACO will help you apply for a phytosanitary certificate using the Phytosanitary

Certificate Issuance and Tracking System (PCIT). If a certificate is issued, it will be

available immediately online for you to print.
If you are unable to download and print the certificate yourself, you may leave a

comment on your application requesting another delivery option, such as mail,

courier, or in-person pickup.

Things To Know When Exporting Plants and Plant

Products

Understand the responsibilities of the exporter (shipper or agent) 

Wood Packaging Material 

CITES (Endangered Plant Species) 

Recommended Best Practices for Reducing Weed Seeds in U.S. Soybean Exports 

Trading Partners Participating in Electronic Phytosanitary Certification 

Need help with a different exporting issue?

Visit Our Trade Contacts Directory
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 585 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding an Interstate 

73 corridor transportation compact. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2016 

Mr. HURT of Virginia (for himself, Ms. ADAMS, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mrs. COMSTOCK, and Mr. RICE of South Carolina) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 

regarding an Interstate 73 corridor transportation compact. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the entering into of an agreement or 

3 compact by 2 or more States, for cooperative effort and 

4 mutual assistance, would be beneficial to the development 

5 of an Interstate 73 corridor. Such an agreement may in6 corporate the following elements to the extent that such 

7 elements are consistent with Federal law and specifically 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 585 IH 

1 section 1105(c)(5) of the Intermodal Surface Transpor2 tation Efficiency Act of 1991: 

3 (1) Study, development, and promotion of a 

4 plan for the design, construction, financing, and op5 eration of the Interstate 73 corridor through the 

6 States of South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, 

7 West Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan. 

8 (2) Coordination of efforts to establish a com9 mon legal framework in all the signatory States to 

10 authorize and facilitate design, construction, financ11 ing, and operation of the Interstate 73 corridor or 

12 through public-private partnerships. 

13 (3) Advocacy for Federal funding to support 

14 the establishment of the Interstate 73 corridor. 

15 (4) Making available to the Interstate 73 cor16 ridor project funding and resources that are or may 

17 be appropriated by the signatory States and allo18 cated for that purpose. 

19 (5) Doing all things necessary or convenient to 

20 facilitate and coordinate the design, construction, fi21 nancing, and operation of the Interstate 73 corridor 

22 to the extent that such plans and programs are con23 sistent with Federal law and the laws of the signa24 tory States. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-2777EM

_____________ Ray Davis, * * Appellant, *

* v. * * Appeal from the United States Jay Angoff, Director, Missouri * District Court for the Eastern Department of Insurance, Individually; * District of Missouri. Mark Stahlhuth, General Counsel, * Department of Insurance, Individually; * [UNPUBLISHED] Joseph R. McMahon, Assistant General * Counsel, Missouri Department of * Insurance, Individually, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: February 12, 1999

Filed: February 19, 1999

_____________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, and FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Ray Davis appeals the district court's adverse summary judgment ruling granting qualified immunity to the parties sued by Davis. Having reviewed the record in the context of Davis's contentions, we conclude that no error of law appears in the districtcourt's ruling. Because the parties' briefs show they are thoroughly familiar-2-

withthe issues before the court in this fact-intensive case, we conclude that an exte nsive discussion would serve no useful precedential value. We also decline to consider arguments Davis raises for the first time on appeal. We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
August 29, 2000

22565

#### Satterfield v. Kinnaman

Vacated
# C_2020027EN.01003401.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/34

---

Order of the General Court of 22 November 2019 — Pyke v EUIPO — Paglieri (CLIOMAKEUP)

(Case T-672/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 27/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Pyke Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta and R. Perotti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Paglieri SpA (Alessandria, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 August 2018 (Case 2675/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Paglieri and Pyke.

Operative part

| 1) | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2) | Pyke Srl and Paglieri SpA shall bear their own costs, and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2)

Pyke Srl and Paglieri SpA shall bear their own costs, and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          64,435                  64,435
<SECURITIES>                                    85,785                  85,785
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,720                  35,720
<ALLOWANCES>                                       995                     995
<INVENTORY>                                     14,983                  14,983
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               217,510                 217,510
<PP&E>                                          89,287                  89,287
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,060                  34,060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 338,693                 338,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,874                  26,874
<BONDS>                                             33                      33
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       287,850                 287,850
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,936                  23,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   338,693                 338,693
<SALES>                                         46,108                 121,021
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,108                 121,021
<CGS>                                           18,168                  48,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,178                  82,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,397                  45,440
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,470                   9,078
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,927                  36,362
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,927                  36,362
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19                    0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18                    0.46
        

</TABLE>
#### State v. Carvalho

16578

10/21/94

Affirmed
#### State v. Kahumoku

19140

4/28/97

Affirmed