alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 94

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 18, 1997.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 412) to approve a settlement agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Oroville-Tonasket

Irrigation District. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

on Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be

in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of

amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill. Each section of the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered

as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
2

•HRES 94

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to

the House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on

any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to

the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00890-CR

Peter BURTON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1990CR0764A

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 15, 2012

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the trial court’s order denying his 

motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc. The denial of a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc is not 

an appealable order. See Caceras v. State, No. 04-10-00132-CR, 2010 WL 726884, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio Mar. 3, 2010, no pet.) (not designated for publication); Castor v. State, 205 

S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.). The proper remedy to obtain review of the 
04-11-00890-CR

- 2 -

denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is by petition for writ of mandamus. Caceras, 

2010 WL 726884, at *1; Castor, 205 S.W.3d at 667. 

On January 24, 2012, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by February 7, 2012, 

why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On February 6, 2012, appellant 

filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file his petition for writ of mandamus. 

Appellant appears to have misunderstood this court’s prior order. Appellant was ordered to 

show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the filing of 

a petition for writ of mandamus is the proper way to obtain review of the denial of a motion for 

judgment nunc pro tunc. The appellate rules governing the filing of a mandamus proceeding do 

not contain a specific deadline. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to appellant’s filing of a petition for writ of mandamus 

seeking relief from the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
1

Opinion issued February 24, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00913-CV

———————————

VIRIAN REYES, Appellant

V.

SAN LUCAS APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1053559

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Virian Reyes, has neither paid the required fees nor established 

indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041 (West 2013); Order Regarding 

Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and 
2

Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 

(Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A § B(1). Further, 

appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the 

clerk’s record or the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), (c). After 

being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not 

adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 42.3(b).

We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and for want of 

prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.48

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                        AMERICAN PHYSICIAN PARTNERS, INC.
                             1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN


         1. Section VI. A. of Article One of the American Physician Partners,
Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

         "VI. STOCK SUBJECT TO THE PLAN

                  A. Shares of Common Stock shall be available for issuance
         under the Plan and shall be drawn from either the Corporation's
         authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock or from reacquired
         shares of Common Stock. The maximum number of shares of Common Stock
         which may be issued over the term of the Plan shall not exceed
         4,000,000 shares, subject to adjustment from time to time in accordance
         with the provisions of Section VI."

         2. No other term or provision of the American Physician Partners, Inc.
1996 Stock Option Plan shall be affected by this Amendment.

         This Amendment was approved by the American Physician Partners, Inc.
Board of Directors to be effective on May 5, 1999. The Stockholders of American
Physician Partners, Inc. approved this Amendment on May 5, 1999.
Case 1:02-cv-03283   Document 93    Filed 11/04/03   Page 1 of 5

Case 1:02-cv-03283   Document 93    Filed 11/04/03   Page 2 of 5

Case 1:02-cv-03283   Document 93    Filed 11/04/03   Page 3 of 5

Case 1:02-cv-03283   Document 93    Filed 11/04/03   Page 4 of 5

Case 1:02-cv-03283   Document 93    Filed 11/04/03   Page 5 of 5
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 1 of 31 PageID #:231
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 2 of 31 PageID #:232
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 3 of 31 PageID #:233
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 4 of 31 PageID #:234
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 5 of 31 PageID #:235
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 6 of 31 PageID #:236
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 7 of 31 PageID #:237
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 8 of 31 PageID #:238
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 9 of 31 PageID #:239
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 10 of 31 PageID #:240
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 11 of 31 PageID #:241
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 12 of 31 PageID #:242
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 13 of 31 PageID #:243
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 14 of 31 PageID #:244
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 15 of 31 PageID #:245
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 16 of 31 PageID #:246
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 17 of 31 PageID #:247
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 18 of 31 PageID #:248
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 19 of 31 PageID #:249
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 20 of 31 PageID #:250
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 21 of 31 PageID #:251
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 22 of 31 PageID #:252
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 23 of 31 PageID #:253
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 24 of 31 PageID #:254
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 25 of 31 PageID #:255
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 26 of 31 PageID #:256
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 27 of 31 PageID #:257
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 28 of 31 PageID #:258
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 29 of 31 PageID #:259
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 30 of 31 PageID #:260
Case: 1:03-cv-05660 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/17/03 Page 31 of 31 PageID #:261
# Official Journal L 299/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 299 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6311 September 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 299

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6311 September 2020

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2020/1157 of Amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2020 | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2020/1157 of Amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2020

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 93 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 93

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics alone should make any adjustments, if any are needed, 
     to the methodology used to determine the Consumer Price Index.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 1997

    Mr. Fox (for himself, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Kennedy of 
Massachusetts, and Mr. English of Pennsylvania) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics alone should make any adjustments, if any are needed, 
     to the methodology used to determine the Consumer Price Index.

Whereas the Consumer Price Index currently informs our Nation's monetary policy, 
        and determines both the level of taxes paid and the amount of government 
        benefits received by millions of Americans, many of them on fixed 
        incomes;
Whereas the Consumer Price Index is assumed in these uses to be an accurate and 
        appropriate measurement;
Whereas the Consumer Price Index is only useful if it is a technical, not a 
        political measurement;
Whereas it is of the utmost importance to maintain the integrity and objectivity 
        of the determination process and of the reliability of the Federal 
        statistical system;
Whereas it is the Bureau of Labor Statistics that has the expertise, tools, 
        resources, and experience to maintain this integrity and objectivity; 
        and
Whereas it is vital to protect our senior citizens and others on fixed incomes 
        that we use the most appropriate and accurate criteria: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved,  That any adjustments to the methodology used to 
determine the Consumer Price Index should be made by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics alone.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2023271EN.01002601.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-748/21) (1)

(Dumping - Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in China to imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand - Anti-circumvention investigation - Circumvention - Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Sufficient evidence - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 271/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, (Hangzhou, China), Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong, Thailand), Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong), (represented by G. Coppo and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission, (represented by P. Němečková, Agent),

Re:

By their action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1474 of 14 September 2021 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not (OJ 2021 L 325, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---
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 Justice Antitrust Division
 Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the **Federal Register**. The following transaction was granted early termination—on the date indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice made the grants. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to this proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.( print page 41994) Early Termination Granted
[07/29/2021]
20211133
G
Gray Television, Inc.; Quincy Media, Inc.
 Suzanne Morris, Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice.


[FR Doc. 2021-16651 Filed 8-3-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
# Official Journal L 22/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.022.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 22 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5525 January 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.022.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 22

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5525 January 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 60/2012 of 16 January 2012 terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 61/2012 of 24 January 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 as regards the administration of the CXL concessions sugar | 8 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 62/2012 of 24 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) as regards the 2013 list of target secondary variables on well-being (1) | 9 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 63/2012 of 24 January 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 16 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 60/2012 of 16 January 2012 terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 61/2012 of 24 January 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 as regards the administration of the CXL concessions sugar

8

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 62/2012 of 24 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) as regards the 2013 list of target secondary variables on well-being (1)

9

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 63/2012 of 24 January 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

16

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
enkticenventerForm (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton I. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other ~
or Magistrate Judge : than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 6859 DATE 2/27/2002
CASE Holt Value Associates vs. Collins Stewart Limited, et al
TITLE ‘

(In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state brietly the natare
of the motion being presented.}

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

rep) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) im Brief in support of motion due

(3) oO Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer briefdue___.

4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for__—_at

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——ssetfor at.

(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__—at___.
7 =. O. Trial{set for/re-set for] on at :

(8) Q {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___at

(9) im) This case is dismissed {with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

a ERCP4(m), a General Rule 21 a) oO HERCPALON2)-

fo. [Other docket entry} Enter Menten
rouppel ae both denied. (23- -T) Collins

14 attached to the original minute order.]

= [For further detail see, or

ay

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. ssumber of notices

VY | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. Tae an a 2%) OR

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

Docketing to mail notices. O
4 Mail AO 450 form. LUAga be

docketing deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

22712002
tt
courtroom Oeeht date mailed notice
SN deputy’s ne ow
initials Gt 1
Date/time receive ; ;
central Clerk's Office ‘mailing deputy initials
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7288** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ALISON LEVON BOYD , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Di strict of North Carolina , at Durham
. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00493

- MJH

- 1 )

Submitted : January 20, 2011 Decided: February 15 , 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part ; dismissed in part by un p ublished per curiam opinion
. Alison Levon Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: By n otice filed September 14, 2010, Alison Levon Boyd appeals the district court ’ s four pre

- judgment order s entered on April 19, 2010. With regard to the order denying the motion for the return of property submitted under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e), we conclude w e have jurisdiction and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. United States v. Boyd , No. 1:08

-

cr - 00493

- MJH

- 1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 2010). Because no appealable final judgment was entered when Boyd filed his notice of appeal and because a secon d notice of appeal has since been filed from the final judgment, we dismiss the appeal from the remaining orders. See United States v. Pardee , 356 F.2d 982 (4th Cir. 1966). The appeal from the final judgment is suff icient to raise every question a rising from the proceedings below
. We deny as moot Boyd’s motions for appointment of counsel and for transcripts. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument woul d not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART