alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Docket Nos.River Ferry Solar I LLC
EG23-277-000Bernard Creek Solar LLC
EG23-278-000Borden County Battery Energy Storage System LLC
EG23-279-000Cald BESS LLC
EG23-280-000Castle Solar, LLC
EG23-281-000Elektron Solar, LLC
EG23-282-000Horseshoe Solar, LLC
EG23-283-000Rocket Solar, LLC
EG23-284-000Moraine Sands Wind Power, LLC
EG23-285-000Earp Solar, LLC
EG23-286-000BCD 2023 Fund 1 Lessee, LLC
EG23-287-000Maverick Clean Energy Center, LLC
EG23-288-000Harris Spencer BESS, LLC
EG23-289-000Brazoria Winmil BESS, LLC
EG23-290-000Harris CenterPoint BESS, LLC
EG23-291-000South Energy Investments, LLC
EG23-293-000Horizon Hill Wind, LLC
EG23-294-000White Rock Wind East, LLC
EG23-295-000White Rock Wind West, LLC
EG23-296-000House Mountain LLC
EG23-297-000Sky Ranch Solar, LLC
EG23-298-000Hardin Solar Energy II LLC
EG23-299-000Proxima Solar, LLC
EG23-300-000Midland Wind, LLC
EG23-301-000Sierra Estrella Energy Storage LLC
EG23-302-000Superstition Energy Storage LLC
EG23-303-000Cane Creek Solar, LLC
EG23-304-000PGR 2022 Lessee 4, LLC
EG23-305-000Canyon Wind Energy, LLC
EG23-306-000Roadrunner Crossing Wind Farm, LLC
EG23-307-000Lone Star Solar, LLC
EG23-308-000MS Solar 6, LLC
EG23-309-000
 Take notice that during the month of November 2023, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2022). Dated: December 6, 2023. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2023-27223 Filed 12-11-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 947 

Expressing support for the designation of the third Sunday in October as 

Clergy Spouse Appreciation Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2016 

Mr. RICHMOND submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of the third Sunday 

in October as Clergy Spouse Appreciation Day. 

Whereas the church is where the community of saints assemble together to cultivate, nurture, and enhance a concrete 

spiritual connection between God and man that ultimately leads to advancing the minds and improving the 

lives of those in the community; 

Whereas the clergy are God’s authorized representatives, 

whose mission is to create an atmosphere of unity, love, 

and hope in an otherwise oppressed and chaotic community; 

Whereas the clergy extend themselves to organize, promote, 

and influence programs and activities that create that atmosphere of unity, love, and hope; 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 947 IH 

Whereas the clergy spouse has accepted the challenge to work 

alongside God’s ambassador as the spouse carries out the 

assigned mission of educating and equipping the community with the necessary tools to enhance their living 

standards; 

Whereas the nature of the service provided by the clergy and 

their spouses is unique, as they are entrusted with the 

spiritual well-being of the flock, thereby creating a positive impact on their respective communities; 

Whereas the dedication and sacrifice provided by the clergy 

spouses to improve the quality of life for their community 

is immeasurable; 

Whereas a day in recognition of the contributions of the clergy spouses would highlight their dedication by increasing 

awareness of the many service programs organized and 

executed by the more than 200,000 clergy spouses in the 

United States; and 

Whereas the third Sunday in October would be an appropriate date to designate as Clergy Spouse Appreciation 

Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of Clergy Spouse Appreciation Day. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: In re S. C. Maxwell Family Partnership, LTD.

Appellate case number: 01-14-00451-CV

Trial court case number: 35517

Trial court: 335th District Court of Washington County

On June 3, 2014, relator S. C. Maxwell Family Partnership, Ltd. filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus challenging the trial court’s May 6, 2014 order denying relator’s motion to transfer 

venue. The Court requests a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the real parties 

in interest. It is ordered that the response of any interested party, if any, shall be due no later 

than Thursday, August 7, 2014.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 10, 2014
Exhibit 32.1



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 quarterly report of Easton Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Michael S. Menzies, President 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:



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 operating results of the Company.



Date: May 17, 2004



/s/ R. Michael S. MenziesR. Michael S. MenziesPresident(Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>
                                       
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                                  COMPUSA INC.

                                 COMPUTATION OF
                  INCOME PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED                 TWENTY-SIX WEEKS ENDED
                                       -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
                                           DECEMBER 26,        DECEMBER 27,       DECEMBER 26,        DECEMBER 27, 
                                              1998                1997               1998                 1997
                                       -----------------   ------------------ ------------------ -------------------
<S>                                    <C>                <C>                 <C>                <C>            
Common shares issued at beginning of
   period............................           93,898             91,853             93,373              91,447
Weighted average number of common
   shares issued during the period...               17                180                459                 399
                                     
Weighted treasury shares during the
   period............................           (2,507)              (628)            (2,507)               (314)
                                       -----------------   ------------------ ------------------ -------------------

Weighted average common shares.......           91,408             91,405             91,325              91,532
Incremental shares related to
   assumed exercise of stock options.            1,426              4,103              1,613               3,979
                                       -----------------   ------------------ ------------------ -------------------

Weighted average common shares
   assuming dilution.................           92,834             95,508             92,938              95,511
                                       =================   ================== ================== ===================

Net income...........................    $      15,571       $     34,067       $     23,711        $     57,526

Basic earnings per share.............    $        0.17       $       0.37       $       0.26        $       0.63
Diluted earnings per share...........    $        0.17       $       0.36       $       0.26        $       0.60
</TABLE>

                                       27
July 22, 1997

19423

#### State v. Lee

Vacated
December 8, 1999

21675

#### State v. Akahi

Affirmed
# C_2021329EN.01001701.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Global Silicones Council and Others v ECHA

(Case T-519/18) (1)

(REACH - Establishment of a list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Entry of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) and dodecamethylcyclohexsiloxane (D6) in that list - Articles 57 and 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Annex XIII to Regulation No 1907/2006 - Weight-of-evidence determination - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 329/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Global Silicones Council (Washington, DC, United States) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: R. Cana and D. Abrahams, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and A. Hautamäki, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: American Chemistry Council, Inc. (ACC) (Washington) (represented by: K. Nordlander and C. Grobecker, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and R. Lindenthal, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment in whole or in part of the decision of ECHA of 27 June 2018 including octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) and dodecamethylcyclohexsiloxane (D6) in the Candidate List for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Global Silicones Council and the other parties listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Global Silicones Council and the other parties listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the European Commission and American Chemistry Council, Inc. (ACC) each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the European Commission and American Chemistry Council, Inc. (ACC) each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---
# C_2018352EN.01001901.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 June 2018 — Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others v Land Oberösterreich and Others

(Case C-435/18)

(2018/C 352/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Otis Gesellschaft m.b.H., Schindler Liegenschaftsverwaltung GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrtreppen GmbH, Kone Aktiengesellschaft, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Respondents: Land Oberösterreich, Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgenossenschaft ‘Lebensräume’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., EBS Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH, WAG Wohnungsanlagen Gesellschaft m.b.H., WSG Gemeinnützige Wohn- und Siedlergemeinschaft reg. Gen.m.b.H., Neue Heimat Oberösterreich Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und SiedlungsgesmbH, BRW Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft ‘Baureform Wohnstätte’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft ‘Familie’ eingetragene Gen.m.b.H., VLW Vereinigte Linzer Wohnungsgenossenschaften Gemeinnützige GmbH, Gemeinnützige Steyrer Wohn- und Siedlungs Genossenschaft ‘Styria’ reg.Gen.m.b.H., Innviertler Gemeinnützige Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgenossenschaft reg.Gen.m.b.H., Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgesellschaft der Stadt Steyr GmbH, Gemeinnützige Industrie-Wohnungsaktiengesellschaft, Gemeinnützige Siedlungsgesellschaft m.b.H. für den Bezirk Vöcklabruck, GEWOG Neues Heim Gemeinnützige Wohnungsgesellschaft m.b.H.

Question referred

Are Article 85 TEC, Article 81 EC and Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to maintain the full effectiveness of those provisions and the practical effectiveness of the prohibition resulting from those provisions, it is necessary that compensation for losses may also be claimed from members of a cartel by persons who are not active as suppliers or customers on the relevant product and geographic market affected by a cartel, but who grant loans to buyers of the products offered on the market affected by the cartel under preferential terms as funding bodies within the scope of statutory provisions, and whose loss lies in the fact that the loan amount granted as a percentage of the product costs was higher than what it would have been without the cartel agreement, which means that they were unable profitably to invest those amounts?

---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS UNAUDITED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND FOR THE QUARTER THEN
ENDED. THIS INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         318,420
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,136,236
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (25,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,444,851
<PP&E>                                         491,226
<DEPRECIATION>                               (252,681)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,073,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          870,652
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,844
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,129,021
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,073,867
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,248,677
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,142,991
[OTHER-INCOME]                                  17,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                123,548
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,750
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            105,798
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   105,798
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 85333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26838]



[[Page 85333]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg], and Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 7, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 1, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg], and Parcel Select Contract 1 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-93, 
CP2024-95.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-26838 Filed 12-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# C_2019122EN.01001901.xml

| 1.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2019 — Nemius Group v EUIPO (DENTALDISK)

(Case T-278/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark DENTALDISK - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 122/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nemius Group GmbH (Obertshausen, Germany) (represented by: C. Bildhäuser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Sesma Merino and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 January 2018 (Case R 741/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign DENTALDISK as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nemius Group GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nemius Group GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---
# C_2021035EN.01001002.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Banca B. SA v A.A.A.

(Case C-269/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consequences of a term being found to be unfair - Replacement of the unfair term - Method for calculating the variable interest rate - Whether permissible - Referral of the parties to negotiations)

(2021/C 35/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Banca B. SA

Respondent: A.A.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, after terms establishing the mechanism for determining the variable interest rate in a loan agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings have been found to be unfair, and when that contract cannot continue to exist following the removal of the unfair terms in question, annulment of the contract would have particularly unfavourable consequences for the consumer and there are no supplementary provisions under national law, the national court must, while taking into account all of its national law, take all the measures necessary to protect the consumer from the particularly unfavourable consequences which could result from annulment of the loan agreement in question. In circumstances such as those in question in the main proceedings, nothing precludes the national court from, inter alia, inviting the parties to negotiate with the aim of establishing the method for calculating the interest rate, provided that that court sets out the framework for those negotiations and that those negotiations seek to establish an effective balance between the rights and obligations of the parties taking into account in particular the objective of consumer protection underlying Directive 93/13.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---
22302

#### State v. Acoba

Affirmed
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-1464WA

_____________ Larry Hearn, * * Appellant, *

* v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western The Local 7370 of the United * District of Arkansas. Paperworkers International Union; * United Paperworkers International * [UNPUBLISHED] Union; Whirlpool Corporation, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: September 16, 1998

Filed: September 18, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Larry Hearn appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in Hearn's lawsuit against his employ er for breach of the collective bargaining agreement and against his union for breach of the duty of fair representation under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1994). Having carefull y reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we find no reversible error and affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[No. 37526.

Department One.

October 21, 1965.]

#### The State of Washington, *on the Relation of the City of Seattle, Appellant,*v. Honorable William J. Wong, *Judge Pro Tempore of the Municipal Court of Seattle, Respondent.*
      ***

*A. L. Newbould*a'nd *Gordon F. Crandall,*for appellant.

*Alfred J. Westberg*and *Charles E. Ehlert,*for respondent.

Reported in 406 P.2d 772.

Per Curiam

— This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court dismissing a writ of certiorari obtained by the city of Seattle for the review of á judgment of the Seattle Municipal Court, wherein certain charges filed against Daniel F. Sullivan, defendant, for the violation of the zoning ordinance of Seattle (ordinance 86300) were dismissed.

We have carefully considered the entire record on appeal to this court and find it inadequate to review the trial court’s judgment in its dismissal of the writ of certiorari.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
#### Olson v. Coronel

16199, 16209, 16481

11/15/94

Dismissed