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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS

  (Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, today the House will take up a bill on the 
Bush tax cuts. The Republicans want to extend the Bush tax cuts to 
everybody, but tax 25 million Americans by not extending certain 
credits that they get right now. The Democratic proposal, which I will 
support and which I'm here for today, despite the fact that my election 
is tomorrow, will extend tax cuts to everybody and raise taxes somewhat 
on people who make over $200,000 individual and $250,000 married. Those 
people still get a tax cut, but just not as much.
  Madam Speaker, 93 percent of the income growth in the last decade 
went to the top 1 percent. That's the people who can afford to pay more 
taxes. And the fact is, to deal with the deficit, we've got to have 
both income and cuts to wasteful spending.
  Republicans and Democrats have agreed. Economists Paul Krugman and 
Joseph Stiglitz have called on both revenue and cuts. And so have 
Martin Feldstein, an adviser to President Reagan, and Hank Paulson, 
Treasury Secretary to President Bush. So did Simpson-Bowles. They've 
all said you need both revenue and cuts. That's what President Clinton 
recommended in 1993, the Democrats supported, and we had a surplus--
wasted on Bush tax cuts.
  I urge support for middle class tax cuts.

                          ____________________
```
#### In the Matter of Rita Sloan et al., Respondents, v County of Westchester et al., Appellants.

— In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered October 30, 1989, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion by permitting the petitioners to serve a late notice of claim. The absence of an acceptable excuse for the delay does not compel denial of the application where, as here, the record establishes that the public corporation received actual knowledge of the facts within 90 days of the alleged malpractice, and there has been no showing that the delay substantially prejudiced the public corporation’s ability to defend the merits (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; *see, Rosenblatt v City of New York,*160 AD2d *839927). While the appellants contend that the medical records kept by the appellant hospital are not sufficient to provide notice of the precise nature of the malpractice claimed in order to perform a thorough and prompt investigation, neither General Municipal Law §50-e (5) nor case law requires a medical affidavit of merit at so preliminary a stage as upon service of a notice of claim *(see, Matter of Charles v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*166 AD2d 526). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Administrative Offices Civil and Family Division Criminal Division Jury Office

(512) 854-9457 (512) 854-9457 (512) 854-9420 (512) 854-9669

fax: 854-4744 fax: 854-9549 fax: 854-4566 fax: 854-4457

Velva L. Price

Travis County District Clerk

Travis County Courthouse Complex

P.O. Box 679003

Austin, Texas 78767-9003

December 10, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle

Third Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711-2547

RE: 03-15-00742-CV; D-1-GN-14-002410

Dear Mr. Kyle,

A clerk’s record in cause number, D-1-GN-14-002410 and Court of Appeals number 

03-15-00742-CV, styled, DARLENE MORIARITY V TEXAS BOARD OF NURSING, is due in 

your office December 10, 2015. This office has not received payment of clerk’s record as of today, 

December 10, 2015. 

Thank you for your consideration.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (512) 854-5835.

Sincerely,

Trish Winkler

Appeals Clerk II

Travis County District Clerk’s Office 

Civil Division

(512) 854-4309
```

[Federal Register: February 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 20)]
[Notices]               
[Page 5091]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01fe10-68]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), announcement is made of a Health Care 
Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting.
    A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to 
health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on 
an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ 
support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-
scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of 
time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review 
meetings which require their type of expertise.
    Substantial segments of the upcoming SEP meeting listed below will 
be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, section 10 (d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(6). Grant applications for the ARRA: Limited Competition ``NRSA 
CE Development Award'' (T32) applications are to be reviewed and 
discussed at this meeting. These discussions are likely to reveal 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications. This information is exempt from mandatory disclosure 
under the above-cited statutes.

    SEP Meeting on: ARRA: Limited Competition ``NRSA CE Development 
Award'' (T32)
    Date: March 3, 2010 (Open on March 3 from 1 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. 
and closed for the remainder of the meeting).
    Place: Hilton Rockville Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville 
Pike, Madison Conference Room, Rockville, Maryland 20850.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the nonconfidential portions of this meeting 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 
Telephone (301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.

    Dated: January 25, 2010.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-1896 Filed 1-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  2050
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES ALLOCATION IMPROVEMENT 
                              ACT OF 2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on 
suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 1550) to establish 
programs in the Department of Justice and in the Department of Homeland 
Security to help States that have high rates of homicide and other 
violent crime, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to direct the Attorney 
General to give priority in the allocation of Federal law enforcement 
personnel and resources to States and local jurisdictions that have a 
high incidence of homicide or other violent crime.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2020320EN.01001902.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/19

---

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 24 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Frontline Digital GmbH

(Case C-438/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/35)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
# C_2008092EN.01001101.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 9 January 2008 — Har Vaessen Douane Service B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-7/08)

(2008/C 92/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Har Vaessen Douane Service B.V. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3357/91 of 7 November 1991 (2), to be interpreted as meaning that the relief referred to in that Article may be claimed in respect of consignments made up of goods which are individually of negligible value but are dispatched as a grouped consignment with a combined intrinsic value which exceeds the value threshold in Article 27? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3357/91 of 7 November 1991 (2), to be interpreted as meaning that the relief referred to in that Article may be claimed in respect of consignments made up of goods which are individually of negligible value but are dispatched as a grouped consignment with a combined intrinsic value which exceeds the value threshold in Article 27?

1

2

| 2. | Should Article 27 of the regulation referred to be applied on the basis that ‘dispatched direct from a third country to a consignee in the Community’ also covers a situation in which the goods are in a third country before being dispatched to the consignee but the consignee's contractual partner is established in the Community? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 27 of the regulation referred to be applied on the basis that ‘dispatched direct from a third country to a consignee in the Community’ also covers a situation in which the goods are in a third country before being dispatched to the consignee but the consignee's contractual partner is established in the Community?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ 1991 L 318, p. 3.

2

---
### 10 Record of Discussion

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier:

- AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder,

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, R AA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED



### DAH Chris Makarov Nov 13, 2012 Other. List below.



### thru Feb 22, 2013

Other/Additional Information: 

### Details about previous ADs and SBs that are related to this one.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Laveroni, Petitioner, v Kenneth K. Rohl, Respondent.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to bar the respondent from resentencing him or remanding him on Suffolk County Superior Court Information Number W912/86.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

On January 4, 1991, the petitioner was validly sentenced, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, to 90 days imprisonment, with credit given for 30 days already served, upon an adjudication that he had violated the terms and conditions of a term of imprisonment previously imposed by judgment of the same court rendered February 3, 1987. The respondent then granted the petitioner a brief stay of execution of the sentence, until February 15, 1991. On February 15, 1991, the case was again adjourned until April 12, 1991, at which time the respondent mistakenly resentenced the petitioner to an unconditional discharge. The court later realized its error, informed the petitioner that it considered the January 4, *1641991, sentence to be the only valid sentence, and requested that the petitioner again appear before it. The petitioner commenced the instant proceeding in an attempt to bar the execution of the sentence imposed January 4, 1991, or to bar imposition of a further resentence, on the ground that the respondent is without authority to modify the sentence of an unconditional discharge.

The petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed. Having been validly and properly sentenced on January 4, 1991, the purported resentence of April 12, 1991, was a nullity. A court has the inherent power to correct its own error in accepting a plea or imposing a sentence when that error is clear from the face of the record, as it is here *(see, Matter of Campbell v Pesce,*60 NY2d 165, 168; *People v Minaya,*54 NY2d 360, 364, *cert denied*455 US 1024; *Matter of Kisloff v Covington,*73 NY2d 445, 450), and the respondent properly recalled the petitioner to vacate the purported resentence and execute the sentence imposed January 4, 1991. As the court is not threatening to act in excess of its power, a writ of prohibition is not available *(see, Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564; *Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 353). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.
# C_2008142EN.01001702.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Court of First Instance, Liège) (Belgium) lodged on 28 March 2008 — Jacques Damseaux v État belge

(Case C-128/08)

(2008/C 142/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jacques Damseaux

Applicant:

Defendant: État belge

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | ‘Must Article 56 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits a restriction, arising from the France-Belgium Convention seeking to avoid double taxation and to establish mutual administrative and legal rules of assistance in the field of income tax, which allows partial double taxation of dividends from shares of companies established in France to subsist and which renders the taxation of those dividends more onerous than Belgian withholding tax alone applied to dividends distributed by a Belgian company to a Belgian resident shareholder?’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

‘Must Article 56 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits a restriction, arising from the France-Belgium Convention seeking to avoid double taxation and to establish mutual administrative and legal rules of assistance in the field of income tax, which allows partial double taxation of dividends from shares of companies established in France to subsist and which renders the taxation of those dividends more onerous than Belgian withholding tax alone applied to dividends distributed by a Belgian company to a Belgian resident shareholder?’

| 2. | ‘Must Article 293 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that it renders wrongful Belgium's inaction in not renegotiating with France a new way of abolishing double taxation of dividends from shares of companies established in France?’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

‘Must Article 293 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that it renders wrongful Belgium's inaction in not renegotiating with France a new way of abolishing double taxation of dividends from shares of companies established in France?’

---
# C_2008064EN.01004101.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/41

---

Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Salej and Technologie Buczek v Commission

(Case T-465/07)

(2008/C 64/66)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: Emilian Salej, acting as receiver for Technologie Buczek S.A. (Sosnowiec, Poland), and Technologie Buczek S.A. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, legal adviser)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare invalid Articles 1, 3(1) and 3(3) of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare invalid Articles 1, 3(1) and 3(3) of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek;

| — | declare invalid Articles 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek in so far as those provisions concern the recovery of the aid mentioned in Article 1 of the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare invalid Articles 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek in so far as those provisions concern the recovery of the aid mentioned in Article 1 of the decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the form of order sought, the applicants put forward pleas in law identical to those raised by the applicant in Case T-440/07 Huta Buczek v Commission
   (1).

Huta Buczek

Commission

1

---

(1)  OJ 2008 C 22, p. 50.

1

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

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 25, 2015

NO. 03-15-00098-CR

Brian Vincent Robinson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the district court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

district court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication 

of costs is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,546
<PP&E>                                          15,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,234
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,537
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,623
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 206
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (52)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        41
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (93)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (93)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020103EN.01002801.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 February 2020 — Delta-Sport v EUIPO — Delta Enterprise (DELTA SPORT)

(Case T-387/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark DELTA SPORT - Earlier Spanish word mark COLCHON DELTA - Earlier EU figurative mark DELTA - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 103/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

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, intervener before the General Court: Delta Enterprise Corp. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 April 2018 (Case R 1894/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Delta Enterprise and Delta-Sport Handelskontor.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO and Delta Enterprise Corp. in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Delta-Sport Handelskontor GmbH to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO and Delta Enterprise Corp. in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---