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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1340 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1340

 To provide funding for the resolution of failed savings associations, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 1993

Mr. Gonzalez (for himself, Mr. Leach, Mr. Neal of North Carolina, Mrs. 
    Roukema, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Flake, and Mr. Frank of 
 Massachusetts) (all by request) introduced the following bill; which 
  was referred to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide funding for the resolution of failed savings associations, 
                        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 ``Thrift Depositor Protection Act of 
1993''.

SEC. 2. THRIFT RESOLUTION FUNDING PROVISIONS.

    Section 21A(i)(3) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 
1441a(i)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(3) Additional funding.--In addition to amounts provided 
        under paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to 
        the Corporation, out of moneys in the Treasury not otherwise 
        appropriated, such amounts as may be necessary, not to exceed 
        $28 billion, to carry out the purposes of this section.''.

SEC. 3. SAVINGS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE FUNDING PROVISIONS.

    Section 11(a)(6) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
1821(a)(6)) is amended--
            (1) by amending subparagraph (E) to reads as follows:
                    ``(E) Treasury payments to fund.--To provide 
                sufficient funding for the Savings Association 
                Insurance Fund to carry out the purposes of this Act, 
                the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to such Fund, 
                out of moneys in the Treasury not otherwise 
                appropriated, such amounts as may be necessary, not to 
                exceed $17,000,000,000.'';
            (2) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``oversight Board of 
        the Resolution Trust Corporation'' and inserting ``Thrift 
        Depositor Protection Oversight Board'';
            (3) by striking subparagraphs (F), (G), and (J); and
            (4) by redesignating subparagraphs (H) and (I) as 
        subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively.

                                 <all>
```
#### WELCH v. STATE.

No. 19654.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 6, 1938.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1938.

Robert P. Brown, of San Angelo, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The offense is theft of two hogs, and the punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the State Penitentiary.

No statement of facts appears in the record, but we do find two bills of exceptions in the transcript. In the first bill appellant complains of the State being allowed to prove by Mrs. John Spurger a certain conversation wherein she testified that N. F. Freeman and her husband, John .Spurger, had a conversation, not in the presence of appellant, the morning after the alleged theft wherein “Freeman told her husband that he (Freeman) had some hogs and wanted Spurger to sell them for him, that he had been selling some hogs recently, and that they might think it *390strange if he sold these; and that he would pay him to sell them for him.”

The court qualified this hill as follows:

> “The court was of the opinion that a conspiracy had been established between the parties mentioned sufficiently to bring the evidence within the rule, and it was properly admitted being acts and declarations of co-conspirators before the conspiracy had ended, and being a part of the whole transaction.

> “The court does not certify that it was not part of the res gestae as the hogs had not been disposed of at that time.”

The bill as qualified shows no error.

Bill of exceptions No. 2 is to the overruling of appellant’s request for a peremptory instruction to the jury finding him not guilty on account of the insufficiency of the evidence to support any verdict of guilty.

In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to review this question, and we cannot sustain this bill of exceptions.

Nothing further is called to our attention, and this judgment is therefore affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice set forth the meeting of the DoD Healthcare Quality Initiatives Review Panel. An executive/administration meeting for DoD Healthcare Quality Initiatives Review Panel was held on November 28 and 29, 2000. This notice of meeting is required under The Federal Advisory Committee Act. This notice was sent out late due to an administration oversight.

# DATES:

November 28 and 29, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.

# TIME:

November 28th, 8 am to 5 pm; November 29th, 8 am to 5 pm.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contact Gia Edmonds at (703) 933-8325.

Dated: November 22, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-30477  Filed 11-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### Jose Sierra, Appellant, v Antonio Garcia, Respondent.

Order Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered on August 24, 1989, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for an order imposing a constructive trust, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint, and striking the first affirmative defense, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The complaint alleges that the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff one half of any recovery he obtained from his landlord in return for plaintiff’s assistance in prosecuting his claim. The record discloses that plaintiff allegedly accompa*278nied defendant to numerous agencies, and provided encouragement and nonlegal services in furtherance of defendant’s prosecution of his claim. The record further discloses that defendant agreed to share his proceeds in front of witnesses, but no writing reflects the agreement. Ultimately defendant obtained a net settlement of $190,000.

The motion court granted summary judgment, holding that the contract was unenforceable. The court relied on General Obligations Law § *13-101*(1), which proscribes transfer of "[a]ny claim or demand * * * to recover damages for a personal injury”. *(See, Barry v New York City Tr. Auth., 121*AD2d 586.)

We disagree with the motion court’s conclusion that General Obligations Law § 13-101 bars the alleged agreement in issue. Here, the alleged agreement is to share the proceeds; neither the demand nor the claim is transferred.

We agree with the motion court’s determination that the equitable remedy of a constructive trust is unavailable inasmuch as there has been no transfer of property to defendant in reliance upon a fiduciary relationship. *(See, Sharp v Kosmalski,*40 NY2d 119, 121; *Matter of Wells,*36 AD2d 471, 474, *affd*29 NY2d 931.)

Defendant’s claim that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for quantum meruit was not raised below and is thus not reviewable. The motion court’s invocation of General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (10) appears inapposite because the complaint alleges a loan of money not services rendered in negotiating a loan.

The motion court erred in disposing of this action by summary judgment. The complaint alleges an executed oral agreement to perform nonprofessional services in return for a share of any proceeds. Factual issues, including issues of credibility and whether the services allegedly performed were rendered gratuitously or for compensation, require a trial. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000709

29-JUN-2017

07:58 AM
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
     Insignia Financial Group, Inc. December 31, 1997 Form 10-K and is qualified
     in its entirety by reference to such 10-K filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0000870480
<NAME>  Insignia Financial Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>             <C>              <C>
                                 Restated        Restated         Restated
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-mos           6-mos            3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                12-31-96        12-31-96         12-31-96
<PERIOD-START>                   01-01-96        01-01-96         01-01-96
<PERIOD-END>                     9-30-96         6-30-96          3-31-96
<CASH>                           60,131          57,366           56,865
<RECEIVABLES>                    30,874          19,101           12,764
<PP&E>                           11,282          10,204           8,291
<Total Assets>                   471,889         473,720          372,363
<BONDS>                          205,590         215,312          151,086
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0               0                15,000
<COMMON>                         288             287              260
<OTHER-SE>                       213,125         212,121          159,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     471,889         473,720          372,363
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 149,204         83,319           40,221
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    106,570         54,273           26,552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 25,477          16,768           11,501
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               11,942          6,667            3,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  8,097           7,690            3,420
<INCOME-TAX>                     3,077           2,922            1,300
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0               0                0
<NET-INCOME>                     5,020           4,768            2,120
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    .18             .18              .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                    .16             .15              .07
        


</TABLE>
No. 72-1205.

#### Stove, Furnace & Allied Appliance Workers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 123-B *v.*Gaffers & Sattler, Inc.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA 00-2681, MM Docket No. 00-97; RM-9865] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission, at the request of Central Virginia Educational Telecommunications Corporation, licensee of noncommercial station WCVE-TV, substitutes DTV Channel *42 for station WCVE-TV's assigned DTV Channel *24a at Richmond, Virginia.                         *See*65 FR 36808, June 12, 2000. DTV Channel *42 can be allotted to Richmond at coordinates ( 37-30-46 N. and 77-36-06 W.) with a power of 100, HAAT of 327 meters and with a DTV service population of 1097 thousand.                     

With this action, this proceeding is terminated. 

# DATE:

Effective January 16, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-97, adopted November 30, 2000, and released December 1, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

      - Digital television broadcasting
      - Television

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

# PART 73—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334. 336. 

§ 73.622 

2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under Virginia, is amended by removing DTV Channel *24d and adding DTV Channel *42 at Richmond. 

      ( print page 76948)    
Federal Communications Commission. 

Barbara A. Kreisman, 

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00-30972 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 4, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2027

Lower Tribunal No. F14-5657

________________

Ronald Jerome Lee,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina 

Miranda, Judge.

Ronald Jerome Lee, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### RAGENS v. STATE.

No. 21565.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 9, 1941.

*961Fred. O. Jaye, of De Leon, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Comanche County for driving and operating a motor vehicle upon a public street and upon a public highway situated within Comanche County and State of Texas, while intoxicated, and assessed a penalty of $50 and twenty days in jail, from which he appeals.

The indictment and the proceedings thereon appear to be regular. We find no bills of exception or statement of facts. It will be presumed that the evidence warranted the conviction, and there is nothing left for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Amendment Agreement to general Agreement Dated January 12, 2004



 Exhibit 4.26.1 
  
  
 AMENDMENT AGREEMENT 
 to 
 General Agreement No. 1605 dated May 16,
1997 
 (the “General Agreement”) 
 and 
 Agreement # 127/KBI dated June 04, 2001 
 (the “Agreement”) 
  

			
	Moscow	 	January 12, 2004

  
 Open Joint-Stock
Company “Vimpel-Communications”, hereinafter referred to as “Contractor”, represented by its Vice-President for Finances and Administration E.A. Shmatova, acting on the basis of Power of Attorney # 412 dated January
12, 2004, on one side, and Open Joint-Stock Company “KB Impuls”, hereinafter referred to as “Customer”, the Bee Line GSM cellular radiotelephony services operator, in the person of its General Director A.V.
Izosimov, acting on the basis of the Charter, on the other side, hereinafter referred to as “Parties”, have entered into this Amendment Agreement (the “Amendment”) on the following: 
  

	1.	In connection with amendments to the General Agreement and exclusion from relations thereunder of the settlements for telecom channel lease services rendered by the Contractor to
the Customer, the Parties have agreed to commence settlements for channel lease services under the Agreement from the date set forth herein. 

  

	2.	The lease price of one telecom channel provided by the Contractor to the Customer, shall be the equivalent of US$600, plus US$108 of VAT. Services are paid for in respect of the
telecom channels actually provided during the reported month. 

  

	3.	The Amendment becomes effective upon its execution and shall be effective throughout the term of the Agreement. The Parties agreed to apply the terms of the Amendment to the
relations of the Parties occurred from January 1, 2004, onwards. 

  

					
	 CONTRACTOR
	 	 CUSTOMER
	 	 
			
	 /SIGNED/ E.A. Shmatova
	 	 /SIGNED/ A.V. Izosimov
	 	 
	 /SEAL/
	 	 /SEAL/
	 	 
			
	 /SIGNED/ Bychenkov
	 	 	 	 
	 /SIGNED/ Kuzischin
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 7050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3065]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Announcement of Proposed Change to All Endangered Species Act 
Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permits Issued for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly 
(Euphydryas editha quino)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to modify all 
scientific research permits issued pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) for the Quino 
checkerspot butterfly to authorize the following activities: survey by 
pursuit; capture; handle; release; and with prior approval from the 
Service, purposefully kill for the collection of voucher specimens.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed action must be received on or 
before March 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written data or comments should be submitted to the 
Chief'Endangered Species, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; Fax: (503) 
231-6243. All comments received, including names and addresses, will 
become part of the official administrative record and may be made 
available to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer O'Brion, Ecological Services, 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-
4181; Fax: (503) 231-6243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Currently all permits issued pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 
Act to conduct presence or absence surveys for the Quino checkerspot 
butterfly only authorize permittees to pursue the butterfly when 
conducting surveys, and no capture or handling of individuals is 
allowed. The Service would like to amend permits to authorize 
permittees to capture and handle individuals in order to confirm 
identification and either release individuals at the capture site or 
potentially kill them for voucher specimens with prior approval from 
the Service. This amendment will ensure that any changes made to the 
management of the Quino checkerspot butterfly are based on confirmed 
new locations.

    Dated: February 4, 2000.
Cynthia U. Barry,
Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 00-3065 Filed 2-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1549 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1549

    To amend the Act of September 30, 1961, to exclude professional 
baseball from the antitrust exemption applicable to certain television 
                               contracts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 1993

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Act of September 30, 1961, to exclude professional 
baseball from the antitrust exemption applicable to certain television 
                               contracts.

    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 ``Baseball Antitrust Restoration 
Amendment of 1993''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    The Act of September 30, 1961 (15 U.S.C. 1291-1294) is amended--
            (1) in the first section by striking ``baseball,'' each 
        place it appears,
            (2) in sections 4 and 6 by striking ``baseball,'' each 
        place it appears, and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``Sec. 7. The antitrust laws referred to in section 1 shall apply 
with respect to joint agreements of the kind described in such section 
entered into by or among persons engaging in or conducting the 
organized professional team sport of baseball.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--With respect to joint agreements 
entered into before the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
amendments made by section 2 shall not apply until the expiration of 
the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```