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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2929 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2929

To amend the Federal Power Act to require the Federal Energy Regulatory 
 Commission to minimize infringement on the exercise and enjoyment of 
property rights in issuing hydropower licenses, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2015

 Mr. Hurt of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Griffith, Mr. 
  Mullin, and Mr. Goodlatte) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Power Act to require the Federal Energy Regulatory 
 Commission to minimize infringement on the exercise and enjoyment of 
property rights in issuing hydropower licenses, 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 ``Supporting Home Owner Rights 
Enforcement Act''.

SEC. 2. HYDROPOWER LICENSES.

    (a) Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e)) is 
amended--
            (1) by designating the first, second, and third sentences 
        as paragraphs (1) through (3) respectively; and
            (2) in paragraph (3) (as so designated)--
                    (A) by striking ``and'' after ``recreational 
                opportunities,''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, and minimizing infringement on 
                the useful exercise and enjoyment of property rights 
                held by nonlicensees'' after ``aspects of environmental 
                quality''.
    (b) Section 10 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 803) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``, including 
        minimizing infringement on the useful exercise and enjoyment of 
        property rights held by nonlicensees'' after ``section 4(e)''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(k) Private Landownership.--In developing any recreational 
resource within the project boundary, the licensee shall consider 
private landownership as a means to encourage and facilitate--
            ``(1) private investment; and
            ``(2) increased tourism and recreational use.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-1724

FRANK J. BORSODY; KATHRYN A. BORSODY,

Petitioners - Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. Nos. 7690-90,

28454-91)

Submitted: March 31, 1995 Decided: August 2, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank J. Borsody, Kathryn A. Borsody, Appellants Pro Se. David I.

Pincus, Gary R. Allen, Richard Farber, Annette Marie Wietecha,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* In light of this disposition, the Appellants' motion to stay

is denied.

2

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Frank Borsody and his wife, Kathryn Borsody, appeal from

the tax court's decision finding them liable for additional taxes

and penalties with respect to their 1987, 1988, and 1989 income tax

liabilities. Our review of the record and the tax court's opinion

reveals that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the tax court. Borsody v. Commissioner, Tax Ct.

Nos. 7690-90, 28454-91 (U.S. Tax Court, Dec. 2, 1993; Mar. 7,

1994).* 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
# CE2004065EN.01022302.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/223 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/223

---

(2004/C 65 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2820/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Separate registration numbers for trailers

Subject:

The Netherlands have introduced a new law requiring each trailer (i.e. large trailer, small trailer, caravan, etc.) to have its own separate and unique registration plate fixed in the usual place.

The UK is one of two EU Member States that does not have a separate registration system for trailers.

I understand that the Dutch authorities are to require UK hauliers to apply for a temporary Dutch registration number called a ‘BO number’ in order to carry goods/cargo through the country.

The UK has a perfectly good system of ID numbers, which are unique to each trailer, which permit the authorities to trace trailers and their ownership.

Does the Commission regard the imposition of extra registration requirements by Member States on hauliers who adhere to the registration requirements of their home Member States as a barrier to the free movement of people and goods within the EU?

If so, what does the Commission intend to do to stop this?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

(29 October 2003)

The Commission was not yet aware of the new Dutch law requiring each trailer which is not separately registered, to obtain a temporary Dutch registration number in order to carry goods/cargo through the Netherlands. Moreover, it seems, on the basis of the information currently available, that the registration procedure is not accessible to hauliers established in another Member State.

The Commission needs to examine this new law more closely in order to check its compatibility with the principles of free movement of goods and transport services. If necessary, the Commission may start infringement proceedings against the Netherlands in order to remove any unjustified obstacles to the free movement of goods and transport services, which could result from this new law.

The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of any further important development in this matter.

---
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 14252.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 27, 1931.

Clyde E. Thomas, Martelle McDonald, and Thomas J. Coffee, all of Big Spring, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for theft; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

It appears from the record that a saddle was stolen, the value of same being more than fifty dollars. Several months thereafter said saddle was found in the house of appellant. He neither made any explanation of his possession nor offered any testimony upon this trial. For some reason the trial judge saw fit to charge the jury upon the proposition of an explanation of recently stolen property. Appellant excepted to the charge on this point upon the ground that there was no necessity for such ehargé, there being no evidence of any attempt to make such explanation. We think .the exception well supported. In the absence of' testimony of some explanation, or attempt at same, such charge could only be confusing to the jury. In the charge relative to this matter the court stated that if the jury believe that recently after the loss of the saddle appellant was found in possession thereof “and offered no reasonable explanation,” etc., that then the jury should take into consideration the possession of the property alleged, etc. Certainly it would be a charge on the weight of the evidence to instruct the jury that they could take into consideration the fact that the appellant made no explanation of his possession of such recently stolen property.

Over objection the state was permitted to prove by the owner of the alleged stolen saddle that some time after its loss he had a conversation with a certain woman, which conversation is set out in bill of exception No. 2. As part of said conversation it appears that said woman told him that appellant got his saddle, and that it was in appellant’s trunk, etc. The court should not have permitted this conversation which was out of the presence and hearing of appellant, and in no sense binding upon him. The facts stated were very damaging to appellant’s rights.

There is some confusion in the récord as to whether at the. time the sheriff went to appellant’s house for the purpose of searching same, he searched it and found the alleged stolen property prior to the time appellant came home, there being a question as to the legality of the search; also as to whether the officer informed appellant that he had a search warrant before appellant told him to go ahead and search. If the case should be tried again the record may be in better shape for us to pass upon the propriety of the issues thus affected.

For the errors mentioned, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
EXHIBIT 23

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. of our report dated January 26, 2000,
included in the 1999 Annual Report to Stockholders of Penn Engineering &
Manufacturing Corp.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
January 26, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Penn
Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. incorporated by reference in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999, in the following
registration statements:

     Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. 1996 Equity Incentive Plan Form S-8
     Registration Statement (Registration No. 333-20101);

     Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
     Form S-8 Registration Statement (Registration No. 333-13073);

     Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. 1998 Stock Option Plan for
     Non-Employee Directors Form S-8 Registration Statement (Registration No.
     333-92907); and

     Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. 1999 Employee Stock Option Plan
     Form S-8 Registration Statement (Registration No. 333-92903).


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 30, 2000
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 3, 2012 

d0131 

Order 

 

February 3, 2012 

144107(15)(16)(18)(19) 

ADRIANA LEE, Personal Representative 

of the Estate of RUFUS YOUNG, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144107 

 COA: 307164 

Wayne CC: 08-104936-NH 

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER and 

CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF MICHIGAN, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. 

The motion to supplement is GRANTED. The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s 

December 28, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear 

that the order was entered erroneously.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Polaroid Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
33-36384 on Form S-8, No. 33-44661 on Form S-3, No. 33-51173 on Form S-8, No.
333-32283 on Form S-8, No. 333-32285 on Form S-8, No. 333-67647 on Form S-3 and
No. 333-96051 on Form S-3 of Polaroid Corporation of our reports dated January
24, 2000, except to Note 8 to which the date is February 14, 2000 relating to
the consolidated balance sheet of Polaroid Corporation and subsidiary companies
as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
earnings, cash flows, and changes in common stockholders' equity, and related
financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three year period
ended December 31, 1999, which reports appear in the December 31, 1999 annual
report on Form 10-K of Polaroid Corporation.

                                          /S/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March XX, 2000
# C_2023110EN.01002001.xml

| 24.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/20

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.106229

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 110/18)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 9.3.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.106229 |
| Member State | Romania |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Schemă cadru de ajutor de stat în contextul crizei economice generate de agresiunea Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei. |
| Legal basis | Draft-ul Hotărârii Comitetului Interministerial de Finantari, Garantii si Asigurări privind modificarea schemei cadru de ajutor de stat în contextul crizei economice generate de agresiunea Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei. |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Soft loan, Guarantee |
| Budget | Overall budget: 2 500 000 000 RON
  Annual budget: 2 500 000 000 RON |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | All economic sectors eligible to receive aid |
| Name and address of the granting authority | BANCA DE EXPORT IMPORT A ROMANIEI EXIMBANK S.A |
| Strada Barbu Delavrancea nr.6A, sector 1, Bucuresti |

Date of adoption of the decision

9.3.2023

Aid number

SA.106229

Member State

Romania

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Schemă cadru de ajutor de stat în contextul crizei economice generate de agresiunea Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei.

Legal basis

Draft-ul Hotărârii Comitetului Interministerial de Finantari, Garantii si Asigurări privind modificarea schemei cadru de ajutor de stat în contextul crizei economice generate de agresiunea Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei.

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Soft loan, Guarantee

Budget

Overall budget: 2 500 000 000 RON

Annual budget: 2 500 000 000 RON

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Name and address of the granting authority

BANCA DE EXPORT IMPORT A ROMANIEI EXIMBANK S.A

Strada Barbu Delavrancea nr.6A, sector 1, Bucuresti

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
IB 

Union Calendar No. 183 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2820 

[Report No. 114–242] 

To reauthorize the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2015 

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. JOLLY, and Mr. 

FATTAH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 

Additional sponsors: Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. 

MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. NOLAN, Mr. 

NEWHOUSE, Mr. ROSS, Mr. LANCE, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. BURGESS, Ms. 

ESHOO, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. HUDSON, and Ms. PINGREE

SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2820 RH

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act 

of 2005, and for other purposes. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2820 RH

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 ‘‘Stem Cell Therapeutic 

5 and Research Reauthorization Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC 

7 AND RESEARCH ACT OF 2005. 

8 (a) CORD BLOOD INVENTORY.—Section 2 of the 

9 Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 (42 

10 U.S.C. 274k note) is amended in subsection (h)— 

11 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

12 (A) by striking ‘‘$23,000,000 for each of 

13 fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and’’; and 

14 (B) by inserting before the period at the 

15 end the following: ‘‘and $23,000,000 for each of 

16 fiscal years 2016 through 2020’’; and 

17 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘2011 

18 through 2015’’ and inserting ‘‘2015 through 2020’’. 

19 (b) NATIONAL PROGRAM.—Section 379B of the Pub20 lic Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274m) is amended by 

21 striking ‘‘2011 through 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘2016 

22 through 2020’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 183 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2820 

[Report No. 114–242] 

A BILL 

Research Act of 2005, and for other purposes. 

To reauthorize the Stem Cell Therapeutic and 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### WILLIAMSON v. STATE.

No. 20925.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 13, 1940.

Shead & Smith, of Longview, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Gregg County for the offense of burglary, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for six years.

The indictment appears regular. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. No error having been presented, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
| (1)   | The      Form 10-Q report for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, filed with the      Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2008, fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act      of 1934; and |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The      information contained in the Form 10-Q report for the quarter ended June      30, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial      condition and results of operations of New Century Equity Holdings      Corp. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/      Mark E. Schwarz         |   | Date:  | August      14, 2008 |
|--------|----------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------|
|   | Mark      E. Schwarz             |   |   |
|   | Principal      Executive Officer |   |   |

----
FIRST COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIESExhibit 23.1    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-55687 of First CommonwealthFinancial Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated January 22, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of FirstCommonwealth Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2002./S/Deloitte & Touche LLPPittsburgh, PennsylvaniaMarch 21, 200398
| **Assets and Liabilities of SCB Recorded at Provisional Fair Value (Parenthetical) (Detail) (USD $)In Millions, unless otherwise specified** | Feb. 10, 2012 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|
| **Business Combinations [Abstract]**                                                                                                         |          |
| Cash received from FDIC                                                                                                                      | $ 17.2        |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Business Acquisition Purchase Price Allocation Cash Received From Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**frme_BusinessAcquisitionPurchasePriceAllocationCashReceivedFromFederalDepositInsuranceCorporation**Namespace Prefix:**frme_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_BusinessCombinationsAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
[No. 45065-4-I.

Division One.

December 26, 2000.]

#### Michelle Bateman, *Individually and as Guardian, Appellant,*v. Children’s Hospital, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 98-2-26157-5, Jay V. White, J., entered July 16, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Coleman and Kennedy, JJ.