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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4315 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4315

To exclude from consideration as income under the United States Housing 
 Act of 1937 certain veterans compensation and pensions, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 2017

  Mr. Vargas (for himself and Mr. Poliquin) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To exclude from consideration as income under the United States Housing 
 Act of 1937 certain veterans compensation and pensions, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Wounded Warrior Housing Reform Act 
of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSIONS FROM INCOME.

    (a) Amendment to Existing Definition of Income.--Paragraph (4) of 
section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
1437a(b)(4)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``except that'';
            (2) by striking ``and any amounts'' and inserting ``, (B) 
        any amounts'';
            (3) by striking ``or any deferred'' and inserting ``, (C) 
        any deferred''; and
            (4) by inserting after ``prospective monthly amounts'' the 
        following: ``, and (D) in the case of a veteran (as such term 
        is defined in section 101 of title 38, United States Code), any 
        disability compensation under chapter 11 of title 38, United 
        States Code, and amounts from a pension paid under section 1513 
        of title 38, United States Code,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall be 
effective during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
this Act and ending on the date on which the amendments made by section 
102(c) of the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 
(Public Law 114-201; 130 Stat. 788) take effect.
    (c) Amendment to Definition of Income After HOTMA.--Effective on 
the day after the date on which the amendments made by section 102(c) 
of the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (Public 
Law 114-201; 130 Stat. 788) take effect, clause (iv) of section 
3(b)(4)(B) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
1437a(b)(4)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(iv) any disability compensation under 
                        chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, and 
                        amounts from a pension paid under chapter 15 of 
                        such title; and''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2020433EN.01001201.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) v European Commission

(Case C-313/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Renewal of the approval of the active substance glyphosate - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 - Action for annulment brought by an association - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Person directly concerned)

(2020/C 433/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) (represented by: G. Dalfino, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Bianchi and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---
From: "Whiteman, Chad" <Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov>

Date: July 7, 2015 at 9:48:08 PM GMT+5:30

To: "Newberg, Cindy" <Newberg.Cindy@epa.gov>

Cc: "Schillo, Bruce" <Schillo.Bruce@epa.gov>, "Hufford, Drusilla" 

<Hufford.Drusilla@epa.gov>

Subject: RE: Following up

I appreciate the level of attention you folks gave to the details of the rule and the consideration given to 

public comments. It was really helpful to have you folks at the EO 12866 meetings to help answer 

questions and keep the ball rolling. I hope that the international negotiations go well.

From: Newberg, Cindy [mailto:Newberg.Cindy@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 8:32 PM

To: Thomas, Amanda

Cc: Schillo, Bruce; Hufford, Drusilla; Whiteman, Chad

Subject: RE: Following up

Thanks Amanda and Chad for all your work on this.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                           1,558
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     0
<PP&E>                           7,186
<DEPRECIATION>                   1,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 153,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                0
<BONDS>                              0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0    
<PREFERRED>                      5,396
<COMMON>                             5
<OTHER-SE>                       4,876
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   153,889
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                41,951
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   41,602     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           8,517,898
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    349
<INCOME-TAX>                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                249   
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                       249
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .53


</TABLE>
# C_2009180EN.01001701.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-144/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 83/182/EEC - Tax exemptions - Temporary import of vehicles - Normal residence)

2009/C 180/27

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/112/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 59) — Incomplete definition of normal residence for the purposes of determining whether there is an entitlement to an exemption

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by using an incomplete definition of normal residence for the purposes of determining whether there is an entitlement to a tax exemption in respect of the temporary import of vehicles, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by using an incomplete definition of normal residence for the purposes of determining whether there is an entitlement to a tax exemption in respect of the temporary import of vehicles, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Eleanor C. Kells, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

September 9, 1959.

*Abraham J. Goldberg*for petitioner.

*Daniel G. Connolly*and *Harold W. Cohn*for Public Administrator.

Maximilian Moss, S. This petition filed on April 17, 1959, by a first cousin of the decedent, seeks to supersede the Public Administrator to whom letters of administration were granted on December 23, 1958. The decedent died December 7, 1958. Several hearings thereafter held established the kinship of the petitioner as the decedent’s first cousin and that there are no persons bearing a closer degree of kinship to the decedent.

The discretionary power to refuse to supersede the Public Administrator (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 136-w) must be subordinated to the mandatory directions for the granting of letters of administration (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 118; cf. *Matter of*Taormina, 2 A D 2d 711, affd. 2 N Y 2d 878). The Public Administrator is superseded and letters of administration heretofore issued to him are revoked. Letters of administration will issue to the petitioner upon qualifying according to law. *512He will be required judicially to settle Ms account within one year and to cite any and all unknown distributees of the decedent. No distribution is to be made by the petitioner until the entry of the decree on the accounting.

Settle order on notice.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to 
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Inouye).
  The legislative clerk read the following letter.

                                                      U.S. Senate,

                                        President pro tempore,

                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 2012.
     To the Senate:
       Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable 
     Christopher A. Coons, a Senator from the State of Delaware, 
     to perform the duties of the Chair.
                                                 Daniel K. Inouye,
                                            President pro tempore.

  Mr. COONS thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro 
tempore.

                          ____________________
```
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No. FAA - 2010 - 0517 Directorate ID: 2009 - SW - 73 - AD Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S - 76A Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 180 Helicopters in the US Registry. Reason : T 

### he actions proposed in this AD are intended to prevent overheating of the electric rotor brake ( ERB ) assembly, ignition of the ERB hydraulic fluid, a fire in the main gearbox area, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter **.** Cost s : Parts per Helicopter $ 

### 13,3 00 Labor per Helicopter ( 38 x $ 8 5 /work-hour) $ 3,230 (modifications and operational tests) Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 16,530 Total US Fleet Cost 

### $2, 975 , 4 00 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be con sidered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial numb er of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: Caspar Wang
##### 



Three Months EndedMarch 31,2007
    
    
    2006Basic Earnings Per ShareNet income
    
    $
    814,512
    
    
    $
    773,906Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,487,087
    
    
    
    2,572,089Basic Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.33
    
    
    $
    0.30Diluted Earnings Per ShareNet income
    
    $
    814,512
    
    
    $
    773,906Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,487,087
    
    
    
    2,572,089Weighted average effect of
assumed stock options
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    4,005Total
    
    
    2,487,087
    
    
    
    2,576,094Diluted Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.33
    
    
    $
    0.30
 20.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered s ubmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 24 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. LISA DENNY DEMEREE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 99-5007 (D.C. No. 96-CR-151-H) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. **
Lisa Denny Demeree, an inmate appearing pro se, app eals from the denial of her motions to stay: (1) the payment of fines during her direct appeal; and (2) the destruction and distribution of all items takenunder search warrants in her case. R. docs. 279, 280. The district court order ed Ms. Demeree to submit a supplemental brief stating the special circumstance s which would justify a stay of- 2 -

the payment of fines. The court denied the motion for a stay of the destruction of items based on the government’s assertion that (a) all documents had been turned over to Ms. Demeree and (b) the government would ma intain all the items during the pendency of the direct appeal. App. Ex. D. Ms . Demeree failed to timely file supplemental briefs and the district court denied h er motion to stay the payment of fines. R. doc. 302. This appeal followed. This court subsequently entered an order and judgme nt affirming Ms. Demeree’s conviction on direct appeal. United Stat es v. Demeree , Nos. 97-5211, 97-5212, 1999 WL 92262 (10th Cir. Feb. 24, 1999). That decision renders Ms. Demeree’s current appeal moot because the motions s he brought only requested a stay during the pendency of her direct appeal. See Phelps v. Hamilton , 122 F.3d 1309, 1326 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[I]f an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to gr ant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed .”) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Ms. Demeree asserts that her appeal is not moot bec ause the government has failed to produce relevant documents and property which are necessary for a habeas corpus motion. She requests an order to the United States Attorney to produce these items. This request should be made t o the district court and is not properly raised for the first time on appeal.- 3 -

Appeal DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
# C_2009282EN.01003204.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 1 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-521/08) (1)

1

2009/C 282/58

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.

1

---
# C_2021278EN.01001001.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 April 2021 — Achemos Grupė UAB, Achema AB v European Commission, Republic of Lithuania, Klaipėdos Nafta AB

(Case C-847/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Decision not to raise any objections - Article 108 TFUE - Rights of the interested parties - Principle of sound administration - Diligent and impartial investigation - Scope of the review by the General Court - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 278/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Achemos Grupė UAB, Achema AB (represented by: R. Martens and V. Ostrovskis, advokatas)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier, N. Kuplewatzky and L. Armati, acting as Agents, and subsequently by E. Gippini Fournier, A. Bouchagiar and L. Armati, acting as Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič and K. Dieninis, acting as Agents), Klaipėdos Nafta AB (represented by: K. Kačerauskas, and V. Vaitkutė Pavan, advokatai)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the main appeal;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the cross-appeal;

| 3. | Orders Achemos Grupė UAB and Achema AB to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in respect of the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Achemos Grupė UAB and Achema AB to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in respect of the main appeal;

| 4. | Orders Achemos Grupė UAB, Achema AB and the European Commission to bear their own costs in respect of the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Achemos Grupė UAB, Achema AB and the European Commission to bear their own costs in respect of the cross-appeal;

| 5. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania and Klaipėdos Nafta AB to bear their own costs in respect of both the main appeal and the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania and Klaipėdos Nafta AB to bear their own costs in respect of both the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|Dated: December 14, 2007 | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM    | 
|------------------------ | ----------------------- | 
|                         | Steven D. Bonham        | 
|                         | Chief Financial Officer | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# C_2021481EN.01000301.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 — Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL v European Commission

(Case C-50/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Tax system - Corporate tax provisions allowing undertakings which are tax resident in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of shareholdings in companies which are tax resident outside that Member State - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Condition relating to selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Difference in treatment - Justification for the difference in treatment)

(2021/C 481/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL (represented: initially by M. Linares-Gil and M. Muñoz Pérez, abogados, and subsequently by M. Muñoz Pérez, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: R. Kanitz and J. Möller, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sigma Alimentos Exterior SL to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Glenn Welstad, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the “Company”) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 25, 2010 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: August 9, 2010





/s/ Glenn WelstadGlenn WelstadPresident and Chief Executive Officer