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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1458-E1459]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    IN HONOR OF FRED AND JAKKI NANCE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Fred and Jakki 
Nance who are the recipients of the 2012 Pan Award at Cleveland Public 
Theatre's Pandemonium 2012: House of Dreams Gala.
  Founded in 1981 by James Levin, the Cleveland Public Theatre is an 
arts complex located in Cleveland's Detroit-Shoreway neighborhood. The 
Cleveland Public Theatre is recognized for shows that are often 
progressive, political, and provocative. It also serves the area's 
urban youth and homeless through educational programs. Cleveland Public 
Theatre's mission is to raise consciousness and nurture compassion 
through ground-breaking performances and life-changing educational 
programs.
  Both Fred and Jakki Nance have long histories of community 
involvement and have committed their lives to improving Northeast Ohio. 
Jakki is a board member for the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame & Museum, 
Union Club, Laurel School and the Thomas Moyer Judicial Center and 
Foundation. She is the president of Philanthropic Solutions and has 
already been a leader with the LeBron James Family Foundation, 
Cleveland Browns Foundation and Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
  Fred Nance currently serves on the boards of the Cleveland Clinic, 
Greater Cleveland Partnership, The Cleveland Foundation and RPM 
International Inc. He has also been a board member for the Cleveland 
Museum of Art, BioEnterprise Inc. and the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland 
Foundation. He is integral in the leadership of the Ohio Business 
Roundtable and the 50 Club of Cleveland.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Fred and Jakki 
Nance who, because of their contributions to the community, are the 
winners of the 2012 Pan Award.

[[Page E1459]]

                          ____________________
```
#### Peter Ragone, Plaintiff, *v.*Augie’s Auto Spring & Wheel Alignment Co., Inc., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

August 20, 1959.

*Barnett Madder*for plaintiff.

*Ernest L. Signorelli*for defendants.

*949Feed J. Mttndee, J.

This motion to preclude is denied.

Not only is the notice of motion unsupported, except by an unsigned affidavit, but the procedure of serving a demand for a bill of particulars after a motion for a bill of particulars was denied without prejudice to a renewal thereof (at the time defendants were permitted to serve an amended answer) is not to be tolerated.

In view of the history of this case defendants are entitled to no remedies except such as may be granted them by the court. With the statement of readiness on file (Rules App. Div. 2d Dept., Special Rule eff. Nov. 18,1957, as amd.) and the case not struck from the calendar, two motions for that relief having been denied, the defendants may not initiate any of the preliminary proceedings authorized by the sections and rules mentioned in the Special Rule (subd. [3], par. [a]), except by motion.

In this situation the failure of plaintiff’s attorney to move to vacate the demand for the bill of particulars will be excused as less objectionable and on the court’s own motion the demand is vacated.

Apart from the statement of readiness rule, after a motion has been denied, with or without prejudice to its renewal, the relief sought should not thereafter be available on notice or demand or otherwise than by a further order of the court.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of SIN Holdings, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Steve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)     
the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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  result of operations of the Company.

| | /s/ Steve S. Sinohui
Steve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 24, 2006
Exhibit
4.46


 


 


[AirNet
Systems, Inc. Letterhead]


 


 


 


 


 


 


March
31, 2005


 


 


Securities and Exchange Commission


450 Fifth Street, N.W.


Washington, D.C.  20549


 


Re:                               AirNet Systems,
Inc. — Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2004


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


AirNet Systems, Inc., an
Ohio corporation (“AirNet”), is today filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Form 10-K”).


Pursuant to the provisions
of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, AirNet hereby agrees to
furnish to the Commission, upon request, copies of those instruments and
agreements defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of AirNet and of
holders of long-term debt of AirNet’s consolidated subsidiaries, which are not
being filed as exhibits to the Form 10-K.  Such long-term
debt does not exceed 10% of the total assets of AirNet and it subsidiaries on a
consolidated basis.


Very truly yours,


	
  AIRNET SYSTEMS, INC.

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ Gary W. Qualmann

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  Gary W. Qualmann

  
	
   

  
	
  Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
Director Compensation Summary



 Exhibit 10.11 
  
 Summary of Director Compensation 
 for Service on the Board of Directors of Captaris, Inc. 
  
 Cash Compensation 
  
 Effective May 4, 2004, nonemployee directors receive the following cash compensation for their service on the Board of Directors and/or committees of the Board of Directors: 
  

				
	 Position

	  	Amount


	 Nonemployee Director Annual Retainer
	  	$	31,000
	 Additional Audit Committee Member Annual Retainer
	  	$	9,000
	 Additional Compensation Committee Member Annual Retainer
	  	$	6,000
	 Additional Governance Committee Member Annual Retainer
	  	$	3,000
	 Additional Chair of Board of Directors Annual Retainer
	  	$	20,000
	 Additional Chair of Audit Committee Annual Retainer
	  	$	14,000
	 Additional Chair of Compensation Committee Annual Retainer
	  	$	6,000
	 Additional Chair of Governance Committee Annual Retainer
	  	$	6,000

  
 Equity Compensation 

 
 All nonemployee directors receive automatic stock option grants pursuant
to our Nonemployee Directors Program under the Captaris, Inc. 1989 Restated Stock Option Plan. Effective January 18, 2005, nonemployee directors receive initial and annual option grants to purchase shares of our common stock with a valuation
(calculated using the methodology then being used by Captaris to value its stock options for financial statement purposes) of $35,000 on the date of grant. The annual grant is not available to a nonemployee director who received an initial grant
within six months prior to the date of the next annual grant. 
  
 Options granted to nonemployee directors under the Nonemployee Directors Program have an exercise price equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant, vest in full one year after the date of grant and expire ten
years from the date of grant or, if earlier, twelve months after the director’s termination of service with Captaris, death or total disability. In the event of certain corporate transactions, such as a merger, sale or liquidation of Captaris,
each outstanding option will accelerate in full in connection with the event.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Ms. SCHWARTZ:
        H.R. 6353.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8
       The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, 
     duties, imposts and excises
```
# C_2010179EN.01003501.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Abadía Retuerta v OHIM (CUVÉE PALOMAR)

(Case T-237/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark CUVÉE PALOMAR - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade marks for wines containing geographical indications - TRIPS Agreement - Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2010/C 179/59)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Abadía Retuerta, SA (Sardón de Duero, Spain) (represented by: X. Fàbrega Sabaté and M-l. Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2008 (Case R 1185/2007-1), concerning registration of the word sign CUVÉE PALOMAR as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Abadía Retuerta, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Abadía Retuerta, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

---
# C_2010037EN.01004902.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/49

---

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 9 December 2009 — IPublish Ganske Interactive Publishing v OHIM (Representation of a navigational device)

(Case T-555/08) (1)

1

2010/C 37/75

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
EXHIBIT 21



NB&T FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



At December 31, 2004



|                                    |  |                        |  |                         |  
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ----------------------- | -
|NAME OF CORPORATION                 |  | STATE OF INCORPORATION |  | PERCENTAGE OF OWNERSHIP |  
|The National Bank and Trust Company |  | Ohio                   |  | 100                     | %
|NB&T Insurance Agency Group, Inc.   |  | Ohio                   |  | 100                     | %
|NB&T Insurance Agency, Inc.         |  | Ohio                   |  | 100                     | %
|NB&T Statutory Trust I              |  | Ohio                   |  | 100                     | %



57
# C_2008272EN.01001001.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 July 2008 — X Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-337/08)

(2008/C 272/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X Holding BV

Appellant:

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent:

Question referred

Must Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC, be interpreted as precluding national rules of a Member State, ... which allow a parent company and its subsidiary to opt to have the tax for which they are liable levied on the parent company established in that Member State as if they were a single taxpayer, but which reserve that option to companies which, for the taxation of their profits, are subject to the fiscal jurisdiction of the Member State concerned?

---
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

David Garcia Reyes, Appellant

No. 06-14-00228-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 

3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. F13-

61746-J). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that the correct name 

of the offense is sexual assault of child. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, David Garcia Reyes, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              DISCHARGE PETITIONS--ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS

  The following Members added their names to the following discharge 
petition:

       Petition 4 by Mr. VAN HOLLEN on H.R. 4010: Sheila Jackson 
     Lee, Dennis J. Kucinich, and Walter B. Jones.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

ROBERT L. GREEN, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 629 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

RYAN BAKER, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 630 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter.
# C_2010288EN.01003402.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2010 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (ROI ANALYZER)

(Case T-233/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ROI ANALYZER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2010/C 288/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1525/2006-4) concerning the registration of the word sign ROI ANALYZER as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

---
# C_2009044EN.01007303.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/73

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 October 2008 — Ortega Serrano v Commission

(Case F-48/08) (1)

1

(Staff case - Manifestly inadmissible - Impossible for applicant to be represented by a lawyer who is not a third party - Legal aid - Application to intervene)

(2009/C 44/129)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Antonio Ortega Serrano (Cádiz, Spain) (represented by: A. Ortega Serrano, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Herrmann and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Selection Board's decision in competition EPSO/AD/26/05, refusing to enter the applicant in the reserve list, and fixing of a new date for the oral test.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Ortega Serrano's alternative claim, that he should be allowed to put his application in order, is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Ortega Serrano's alternative claim, that he should be allowed to put his application in order, is dismissed.

| 3. | Mr Ortega Serrano is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Ortega Serrano is ordered to pay the costs.

| 4. | It is not necessary to rule on the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

It is not necessary to rule on the application to intervene.

| 5. | The European Data Protection Supervisor is to bear the costs relating to his application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The European Data Protection Supervisor is to bear the costs relating to his application to intervene.

| 6. | The application for legal aid in Case F-48/08 AJ Ortega Serrano v Commission is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The application for legal aid in Case F-48/08 AJ Ortega Serrano v Commission is dismissed.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008, p. 52.

1

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4370 

To amend the Natural Gas Act to expedite approval of exports of small 

volumes of natural gas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2017 

Mr. YOHO (for himself, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. FRANCIS ROONEY of Florida, Mr. 

PERRY, and Mr. PEARCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Natural Gas Act to expedite approval of 

exports of small volumes of natural gas, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Scale LNG Ac5 cess Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF EXPORT OF CERTAIN 

7 VOLUMES OF NATURAL GAS. 

8 Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 

9 717b(c)) is amended— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4370 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(c) For purposes of’’ and in2 serting the following: 

3 ‘‘(c) EXPEDITED APPLICATION AND APPROVAL

4 PROCESS.— 

5 ‘‘(1) FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS IN EFFECT.— 

6 For purposes of’’; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(2) SMALL-SCALE NATURAL GAS EXPORTS.— 

9 For purposes of subsection (a), any application for 

10 the exportation of natural gas in a volume that is 

11 equal to or less than 51,100,000,000 cubic feet per 

12 year of natural gas shall be— 

13 ‘‘(A) deemed to be consistent with the pub14 lic interest; and 

15 ‘‘(B) granted without modification or 

16 delay. 

17 ‘‘(3) EXCLUSIONS.—Paragraphs (1) and (2) 

18 shall not apply to any nation subject to sanctions 

19 imposed by the United States.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
#### FAUST v. STATE.

No. A-12008.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 9, 1954.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 1954.

Gene Stipe, McAlester, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

The plaintiff in error Dave Washington Faust, defendant below, was charged by information in the county court of Pittsburg county, Oklahoma, with having committed the offense of operating a motor vehicle, to wit, a 1948 Chevrolet automobile, upon U. S. Highway 270 at a point 8 miles east of McAlester, Pittsburg county, Oklahoma, contrary to Title 47 O.S.1951 § 93. The offense was allegedly committed on or about the 9th day of February 1953 in the aforesaid county and state. He was tried by a jury, convicted, his punishment fixed at a fine of $200 and 90 days in jail; judgment and sentence was entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been taken.

The evidence in support of the conviction is to the effect that he drove his automobile in a weaving manner down the highway from the right to the left side of the highway, had a strong smell of intoxicating liquor upon his person and was wobbly upon his feet. The evidence further shows that when he got out of the automobile he fell against the side of his car. The evidence clearly supports the conviction. An examination of the pleadings, instructions and judgment discloses no material error. The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed under the authority of Whitlow v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 2, 184 P.2d 253.

POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.
THOMAS MONTGOMERY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5581

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed September 20, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. J. Scott Duncan , Judge

.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, Miami , for Appellant.

Pam ela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charlie Lee, Assistant Attorney General,
Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF

, LEWIS

, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
# C_2008183EN.01000602.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/6

---

Request for an opinion submitted by the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to Article 300(6) EC

(Opinion 1/08)

(2008/C 183/10)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant:

Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. White, M. Huttunen and L. Prete, Agents)

Questions submitted to the Court:

| 1. | Does the conclusion of the agreements with the affected WTO [World Trade Organisation] members, pursuant to Article XXI of the GATS [General Agreement on Trade in Services], as described in this request for an Opinion, fall within the sphere of exclusive competence of the Community or within the sphere of shared competence of the Community and the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the conclusion of the agreements with the affected WTO [World Trade Organisation] members, pursuant to Article XXI of the GATS [General Agreement on Trade in Services], as described in this request for an Opinion, fall within the sphere of exclusive competence of the Community or within the sphere of shared competence of the Community and the Member States?

| 2. | Do Article 133(1) and (5), in conjunction with Article 300(2) of the EC Treaty, constitute the appropriate legal basis for the act concluding, on behalf of the European Community, or of the Community and its Member States, the aforementioned agreements? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Article 133(1) and (5), in conjunction with Article 300(2) of the EC Treaty, constitute the appropriate legal basis for the act concluding, on behalf of the European Community, or of the Community and its Member States, the aforementioned agreements?

---