alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHAMBER of COMMERCE 

OF THE PALM BEACHES 

RESOLUTION 

Calling on Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx and Secretary of State John Kerry 

to begin Open Skies consultations with the governments of Qatar and the United Arab 

Emirates in order to restore fair market principles and to address unfair subsidies 

provided to their state-owned airlines. 

WHEREAS, for decades Open Skies agreements have brought great benefits to 

U.S. travelers, U.S. airlines and the U.S. economy by creating a 

framework for competitive, fair market air travel between countries; and 

WHEREAS, U.S. airlines support 11 million American jobs and $1.5 trillion in 

nationwide economic activity; and 

WHEREAS, the nations of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have 

violated Open Skies policy by funneling $42 billion in government 

subsidies and other unfair benefits to their state-owned airlines (Qatar 

Airways, Etihad Airways and Emirates Airline), distorting the 

international aviation market and undermining fair competition; and 

WHEREAS, these subsidies pose a direct threat to the U.S. airline industry and 

thousands of American jobs including an average of 821 jobs per each 

roundtrip flight lost to these carriers; therefore, let it be 

RESOLVED, that the Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches urges the U.S. 

government to initiate consultations with Qatar and the UAE as provided 

for within Open Skies agreements to address this issue; we also ask the 

U.S. government to request a freeze on new capacity from the Gulf 

carriers to the U.S. while these consultations are going forward. 

Date: Apri / J<t J,a L 5
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 – Commission v Belgium**

**(Case C-239/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/100/EC – Freedom of movement for persons – Amendment of certain directives by reason of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)*

2.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Amendment of secondary legislation by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania –
Directive 2006/100 (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 2006/100, Art. 2) (see paras 8-11)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 amending certain directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 amending certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
**Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 – Prana Haus v OHIM**

**(Case C-494/08 P)**

Appeal – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure – Community trade mark – Word mark PRANAHAUS – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks
consisting exclusively of signs or indications to designate a product’s characteristics (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art.
7(1)(c)) (see paras 29-31)*

2.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment
of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court
of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 36)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2008 in Case T-226/07 | Prana Haus | v | OHIM | , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action seeking annulment of the decision of 18 April 2007 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision to refuse registration of the word mark PRANAHAUS for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 35 – Descriptive character of the mark. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Prana Haus GmbH to pay the costs. |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7253
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GHULAM MOHAMMED NASIM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR88-378-HM, CA-96-777-S, CA-95-2816-S) Submitted: October 20, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Ghulam Mohammed Nasim, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ghulam Nasim appeals from a district court order denying his motion to reconsider the court's prior orders denying his request for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have already affirmed the district court's order denying habeas relief in United States v. Nasim , No. 96-7002 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 1997). Hence, the district court was foreclosed from granting relief under the law of the case doctrine. See Heathcoat v. Potts , 905 F.2d 367, 370 (11th Cir. 1990); Capital Investors Co. v. Executors of Estate of Morrison , 584 F.2d 652, 654 (4th Cir. 1978). Accordingly, the order of the district court is affi rmed. Nasim's motions for appointment of counsel and to stay proceedings are denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
111

111, 

HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT

NO. 1 OF THE PARISH OF

TERREBONNE, STATE OF

LOUISIANA

VERSUS

HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT

NO. 3 OF THE PARISH OF

LAFOURCHE, STATE OF

LOUISIANA AND THIBODAUX

REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. 

NO. 2023 CW 1273

FEBRUARY 16, 2024

In Re: Thibodaux Regional Health System, Inc., applying for

supervisory writs, 32nd Judicial District Court, 

Parish of Terrebonne, No. 195104. 

BEFORE: CHUTZ, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

Greene, J., dissents and would grant the writ. Louisiana

Code of Civil Procedure Article 1422 provides that "[ p] arties

may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which

is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending

action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party

seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other

party[.]" Further, Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article

1426 states that "[ u] pon motion by a party or by the person from

whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court... 

may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or

person[.]" I find that plaintiff, Hospital Service District No. 

1 of the Parish of Terrebonne, State of Louisiana, failed to

meet its burden of showing good cause for a protective order. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
# C_2010063EN.01004303.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/43

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-516/08) (1)

1

2010/C 63/69

Language of the case: Polish

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.

1

---
21809

#### Thompson v. Department of Land Utilization, City and County of Honolulu

Affirmed
Exhibit 23.2
  Consent
of Marston & Marston, Inc. and Marston, North Carolina, P.C.
  
    
    Registration Statement No. 33-37855 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-19215 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-93773 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-53531 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-75742 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-75744 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-113945 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-124677 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 33-57920 on Form S-3;
    
    Registration Statement No. 33-133854 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-142615 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-150807 on Form S-8;
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-151942 on Form S-8; and
    
    Registration Statement No. 333-159077 on Form S-8.
  MARSTON & MARSTON, INC.
MARSTON, NORTH CAROLINA, P.C./s/  Terry KremmelTerry Kremmel
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alumina Limited, an
Australian corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                 |  |                         |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Dated: April 24, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ Peter Wasow |  |                        
|                      |  |  |  | Name:           |  | Peter Wasow             |  | 
|                      |  |  |  | Title:          |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |
Jonathan B. Hill

T: +1 202 776 2725 jhill @cooley.com

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHI NGTON, DC 20004

- 2400 T: (202) 842

- 7800 F: (202) 842

- 7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM January 31 , 2014

Esta Rosenberg , Chief

U.S. Air Carrier Division Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

RE: Docket DOT

- OST

- 2014

- 00 10

Dear Ms. Rosenberg :

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (“Hawaiian ”) and Air China Limited ( “ Air China ” ) ha ve completed their polling of carriers served with their joint application for Statement s of Authorization. Hawaiian

and Air China ha ve received a “no objection” from all carriers who were served with the application a nd are still operating. 1

Sincerely,

Jonathan B. Hill

Counsel for Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

cc: Service List

1 Hawaiian and Air China inadvertently served the application on Evergreen International Airlines (“Evergreen”). Evergreen and its relevant affiliated entities filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on December 31, 2013, and appear to have ceased operations.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             H O U S E  O F  R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

Vol. 158

WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2012

No. 116
```
EXHIBIT
10.20


 


Description
Of December 8, 2003 Stock Repurchase Transaction With Insiders


 


 


On December 8, 2003, we
repurchased from Marshall G. Cox, Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Marc
H. Hadrick, MD, Chief Scientific Officer and Director, and from a trust for the
benefit of the family of Christopher I. Calhoun, Chief Executive Officer and
Director, a total of 375,000 shares of common stock for $1,393,000 in cash.  The repurchase price was established by the
Board of Directors as 100% of the mean average of the closing sale prices of
our common stock on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange over the 10 trading days before
the repurchase.  We are holding the
375,000 shares as treasury stock.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1356-E1357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             HONORING THUNDER BAY COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DAN BENISHEK

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of the First 
District of Michigan, I

[[Page E1357]]

wish to commend the Thunder Bay Community Health Service (TBCHS) for 30 
years of dedicated service to comprehensive and preventative health 
care.
   Over the past three decades, TBCHS has been committed to the vital 
work of bringing high quality, cost effective, and accessible health 
care to Northern Michigan. Working out of five centers in the 
Northeastern Lower Peninsula, TBCHS ensures that residents of Northern 
Michigan receive first rate medical care. It is fitting that TBCHS 
celebrates this important milestone during National Health Center Week. 
Community health centers, like TBCHS, are at the core of our health 
care system.
   Since seeing their first patient in 1982, the dedicated providers 
and administrators of TBCHS have continually adapted their care to meet 
the changing needs of Northern Michigan families. By providing 
preventive services and comprehensive primary health care, TBCHS keeps 
our families healthy while also preventing costlier health care 
alternatives such as emergency room treatment.
   The doctors, nurses, and other providers of TBCHS cannot do this 
alone, but are supported by dedicated staff and board members. The 
TBCHS team has been a trusted community partner, from providing nursing 
services in local schools to conducting senior companion programs.
   As a doctor who has treated patients for nearly 30 years and as a 
life-long resident of Northern Michigan, I greatly appreciate the 
commitment of TBCHS to empower healthier communities by making quality 
health care more affordable for Northern Michigan families.
   On behalf of the over 13,000 patients who receive its care each 
year, I wish to thank Thunder Bay Community Health Service for 30 years 
of commitment and care. I know these successes will continue for the 
next 30 years and beyond.

                          ____________________
```
(August 28, 1991)

#### In the Matter of Kathleen A. Reynolds, Respondent-Appellant, v Michael G. Van Blake et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Respondent.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered on or about August 26, 1991, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by the Referee as confirmed by Martin Evans, J., without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                       LANDRY'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANTS, INC.

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                 FULLY DILUTED

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                               Year End December 31,
                                                                       -------------------------------------
                                                                          1996         1995         1994
                                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------
<S>                                                                    <C>          <C>          <C>

Net Income.................................................            $ 1,505,573  $11,047,682  $ 6,608,308
                                                                       ===========  ===========  ===========
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding.................             23,510,000   18,999,476   16,098,071
Common Stock Equivalents -- Stock Options (Fully Diluted)..                590,000      301,000         ----
                                                                       -----------  -----------  -----------
Weighted Average Common
 and Common Equivalent Shares -- (Fully Diluted)...........             24,100,000   19,300,476   16,098,071
                                                                       ===========  ===========  ===========
Fully Diluted Net Income Per Share.........................            $      0.06  $      0.57  $      0.41
                                                                       ===========  ===========  ===========
</TABLE>
# C_2008064EN.01004304.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/43

---

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Deltalinqs and SVZ v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-481/07)

(2008/C 64/72)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Deltalinqs and SVZ, Havenondernemersvereniging Rotterdam (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission's decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decision;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the Commission's decision of 10 May 2007 (OJ 2007 C 227, p. 4) concerning the Flemish rules on support for inter-modal transport via inland waterways (Aid measure N 682/2006 — Belgium). In the contested decision the Commission regards the support measure as compatible with the common market and decides not to raise any objection.

In support of their application, the applicants claim that there has been an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aids for transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ English Special Edition, 1970(II), p. 362) and Articles 12 and 73 EC. They state that the subsidy is available on the transhipment of containers in Flemish inland ports when the containers enter or leave the European Union via a Flemish sea port but not when a sea port is in another Member State. They claim that this constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality.

They also argue that the subsidy leads to a distortion of competition, as it seriously disadvantages all ports in north-west Europe which trade with the Flemish hinterland, and particularly the port of Rotterdam.

They also plead infringement of the obligation to investigate and state reasons. They maintain that the Commission has failed to investigate the consequences for competition and to explain why an economic investigation was not necessary.

---
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

MATTHEW GORSKI, *

* No. 13-224V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: October 28, 2013

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Entitlement; influenza (“flu”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * vaccine; radial nerve palsy

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Anne Carrion Toale, Maglio Christopher and Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner;

Ann Donohue Martin, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED RULING FINDING ENTITLEMENT1

On March 29, 2013, Matthew Gorski filed a petition for compensation

alleging he suffered a radial nerve injury caused by his receipt of the influenza 

(“flu”) vaccine, which he received on October 22, 2010. Mr. Gorski seeks

compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 

In the Rule 4(c) report, respondent stated that the Mr. Gorski’s claim is 

compensable under the Act. Respondent stated that the Division of Vaccine Injury 

Compensation, Department of Health and Human Services, has reviewed the facts 

of this case and have concluded that Mr. Gorski is entitled to a vaccine award

because “a preponderance of evidence establishes that petitioner suffered a radial 

 

1

 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this ruling on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the 

parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website. 
nerve palsy that was caused-in-fact by the administration of his October 22, 2010, 

flu vaccine, and that petitioner’s injury is not due to factors unrelated to the 

administration of this vaccine. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1).” Additionally, 

respondent states that, “petitioner’s medical records establish that the statutory six 

month sequela requirement has been satisfied. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(D)(i); 

see also Pet. Ex. 5 at 3.”

Special masters may determine whether a petitioner is entitled to 

compensation based upon the record. A hearing is not required. 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-13; Vaccine Rule 8(d). Based upon a review of the record as a whole, the 

undersigned finds that Mr. Gorski has established that he is entitled to 

compensation for his injuries. 

Accordingly, Mr. Gorski is entitled to compensation. A status conference 

is set, sua sponte, for Wednesday, November 13, 2013 at 3:30 P.M. Eastern 

Time to discuss the process for quantifying the amount of damages to which he is 

entitled.2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357-

6353.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2 All preexisting deadlines are CANCELLED.