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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1905 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1905

To require notice from the Secretary of the Treasury in the case of any 
                closure of a Taxpayer Assistance Center.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2019

  Mr. Gomez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require notice from the Secretary of the Treasury in the case of any 
                closure of a Taxpayer Assistance Center.

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

SECTION 1. NOTICE FROM IRS REGARDING CLOSURE OF TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE 
              CENTERS.

    Not later than 90 days before the date that a proposed closure of a 
Taxpayer Assistance Center would take effect, the Secretary of the 
Treasury, or the Secretary's delegate, shall--
            (1) make publicly available (including by non-electronic 
        means) a notice which--
                    (A) identifies the Taxpayer Assistance Center 
                proposed for closure and the date of such proposed 
                closure; and
                    (B) identifies the relevant alternative sources of 
                taxpayer assistance which may be utilized by taxpayers 
                affected by such proposed closure; and
            (2) submit to Congress a written report that includes the 
        information included in the notice described in paragraph (1), 
        the reasons for such proposed closure, and such other 
        information as the Secretary may determine appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
1110 Brickell Avenue

Suite 430k-200

Miami, FL 33131

www.ledgerx.com

FOIA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED BY LEDGERX LLC dba FTX US DERIVATIVES

APPENDIX A

REDACTED
1110 Brickell Avenue

Suite 430k-200

Miami, FL 33131

www.ledgerx.com

FOIA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED BY LEDGERX LLC dba FTX US DERIVATIVES

APPENDIX B

REDACTED
Translation of Loan Agreement



 Exhibit 10.48 

Agreement 
 Party A:
Guangdong Mingyang Wind Power Technology Company Ltd. 
 Party B: Zhongshan Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd 

In accordance with the Contract Law and relevant rules and regulations, regarding the guarantee services for the Yudean Zhanjiang Xuwen Wind Farm
Project, Party A and Party B agree as follow through amicable negotiations: 
 ARTICLE 1 

Party A shall use the Yudean Zhanjiang Xuwen Wind Farm Project for factoring finance from Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, but the contract for
the Yudean Zhanjiang Xuwen Wind Farm Project shall be entered into between Zhongshan Mingyang Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd and Yudean. Such financing shall be in the name of Zhongshan Mingyang Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd to transact all factoring
finance procedures, which means Party B shall handle the factoring finance service for Party A. The amounts and expenses relating to the factoring finance service are as follows: 

Invoice value of account receivable: RMB 183,800,000; 

Amounts on factoring finance: RMB 178,000,000 

Account receivable due date: March 1st, 2010 

Disbursement date of factoring finance: January 22th, 2009 

Due date of factoring finance: March 1st, 2010 

Interest rate: 2.07% 

Interest payment: RMB 4,124,705 

Bank charge: RMB 919,000 

Income of Investment Banks: RMB 5,560,000 (2,780,000*2) 

Total Expenses: RMB 10,603,705 

Cost of capital from factoring finance: 10,603,705÷(178,000,000-10,603,705)=6.33% 

(annual fee 5.75%) 
 ARTICLE
2 
 Upon completion of factoring finance procedures and receipt of capital from the bank, Party B shall pay to Part A the capital from
factoring finance after deducting bank interest and relevant bank charges promptly. 
 ARTICLE 3 

Interests and expenses arisen from the factoring services shall be borne by Party A, and Party B shall deduct such interests and expenses directly from
the capital from factoring finance according to the time bank charged. 







 ARTICLE 4 

Party B shall not charge any agency fee other than bank charges. 

ARTICLE 5 
 Any dispute between the two
parties shall be resolved through amicable negotiations. 
 Party A: Guangdong Mingyang Wind Power Technology Company Ltd. 

Signed by: 
 Date:
January 22nd, 2009 

Party B: Zhongshan Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd 

Signed by: 
 Date:
January 22nd, 2009
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 2 1

- 00 521

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF JOHN MOORE KILLIAN

, Deceased

F rom Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019PC2157

Honorable Oscar J. Kazen

, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 3, 2022

DIS MISSED

Appellant has file d a motion to dismiss this appeal due to settlement . Appellee does not

oppose the motion. Therefore, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against the appellant.

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 24347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12224]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, May 23, 2001, 10 a.m.-12 noon; 2-4 p.m.

LOCATION: Room 420, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Open to the Public.

Matter to be Considered:   

Baby Bath Seats (Petition HP 00-4)

    The staff will brief the Commission on Petition HP 00-4, filed by 
the Consumer Federation of America and nine other organizations, 
requesting that the Commission ban baby bath seats to address a risk of 
injury or death by drowning.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: May 9, 2001.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-12224 Filed 5-10-01; 2:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
# C_2017221EN.01003601.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/36

---

Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Bösel (MONSTER DIP)

(Case T-274/17)

(2017/C 221/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marco Bösel (Bad Fallingbostel, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘MONSTER DIP’ — Application for registration No 13 118 211

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2017 in Case R 1062/2016-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 April 2016 in opposition B 2433681; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 April 2016 in opposition B 2433681;

| — | reject the opposed mark for all goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposed mark for all goods and services;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
153 So. 243

#### EWING v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF MONTGOMERY, ALA., et al.

3 Div. 79.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 1, 1934.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1934.

Ball & Ball, of Montgomery, for appellant.

T. B. Hill, Jr., and Rushton, Crenshaw & Rushton, all of Montgomery, for appellees.

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

 This case has been before this court before, 148 So. 836.1 it was there held that the bill was subject to the respondents’ demurrer in its attempt to escape a tender because a sufficient and accurate statement *had*not been furnished of all lawful charges essential to a redemption, and that the statement, as to 'the inaccuracy and incorreet:..ess of said charges, was too vague and indefinite.

After affirmance, the bill of complaint was. amended, but we fail to discover any material improvement or substantial change in an attack on the different items of said charges-True, the amendment charged that the item of $425 attorneys’ fee was unreasonable, and, as suggested in brief of appellant’s counsel, “makes an issue for the trial court to determine.” And we may add, if the issue is found in favor of the appellant, it would excuse a tender. The attack is not confined to this item of the statement, but to others and, in a way, condemned on the former appeal. In other words, should the appellant fail to establish his charge as to attorneys” fee, the amended bill puts the respondent at the disadvantage of litigating the correctness of other items of the statement not properly pointed out by the bill either before- or since the amendment. The trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the bill as last amendefl, and the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

THOMAS, BROWN, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

1

227 Ala. 46.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRIS KOHLER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MIDWAY LAND, LLC and SEA

FINANCIAL, INC.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-55759

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00148-JMWMC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Jeffrey T. Miller, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 3, 2015

Pasadena California

Before: REINHARDT and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior District

Judge.** 

FILED

FEB 09 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

1
In this case, brought under the ADA, the district court granted summary

judgment to the defendants. It concluded that although “there would be a material

issue of fact with respect to the slope of the areas challenged by Plaintiff because

[Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ witnesses, both of whom made measurements after

remediation had purportedly occurred,] reach contrary conclusions,” Kohler’s

witness had not demonstrated his qualifications to serve as an expert witness;

therefore, it refused to consider his declaration. 

Subsequently, we held in Strong v. Valdez Fine Foods, 724 F.3d 1042 (9th

Cir. 2013), that a disabled plaintiff complaining of precisely the same barrier –

excessive slopes in a parking lot – was not required to offer expert evidence or

precise measurements to survive summary judgment. We therefore vacate the

portion of the district court’s judgment challenged on appeal and remand this case

for reconsideration in light of Strong.

1

VACATED and REMANDED.

 Costs awarded to Kohler. 

1

We also conclude that the allegations in Kohler’s complaint and declaration

are sufficient to establish standing under Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.,

631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). 

2
# C_2017392EN.01003601.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/36

---

Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Rodonita v Commission and SRB

(Case T-645/17)

(2017/C 392/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rodonita, SL (Coruña, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Additionally, in accordance with Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the defendants and the parties intervening in full or partial support of the form of order sought by them to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Additionally, in accordance with Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the defendants and the parties intervening in full or partial support of the form of order sought by them to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board

---
STRONGIN ROTHMAN & ABRAMS, LLP

5 Hanover Square, Fourth Floor

New York, NY 10004

(212) 931-8300

Attorneys for Defendants

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC. and

NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------x

IN RE LOWER MANHATTAN DIASTER SITE

LITIGATION (21 MC 102)

----------------------------------------------------------------x

HERBERT NEGRON,

Plaintiffs,

-againstNOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC. and

NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

ET AL,

(See Defendants’ List)

Defendants,

Case No.: 21 MC 102 (AKH)

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF

ANSWER TO MASTER

COMPLAINT

Docket No.: 07 CV 05305

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

----------------------------------------------------------------x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC.

and NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. (collectively referred to herein as

“Nomura Parties”), as and for their responses to the allegations set forth in the

Complaint by Adoption (Check Off Complaint) related to the Master Complaint filed

herein and applicable to the above captioned matter hereby adopts all of the responses

and all of the affirmative defenses contained in the Answer to the Master Complaint

dated, filed and served July 31, 2007, In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan

Disaster Site Litigation 21MC102 (AKH). The responses to all of the allegations in the

Master Complaint are adopted herein and are applicable to the Check-Off Complaint

Case 1:07-cv-05305-AKH Document 30 Filed 05/29/2008 Page 1 of 2
and Amended Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master

Complaint Adding New Defendants Not Previously Served, served and filed herein.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES,

reserves the right to serve and file an amended answer and specifically reserves the

right to interpose a cross-claim against any and all co-defendants.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, also

adopts all affirmative defenses and the jury demand herein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, demands judgment dismissing

the above captioned action against it along with the costs and disbursements of this

action.

Dated: New York, New York

May 28, 2008

Yours, etc.

STRONGIN ROTHMAN & ABRAMS, LLP

s/Jill S. Taylor

________________________________

JILL S. TAYLOR, ESQ. (JT-4731)

Attorneys for Defendants

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC. and

NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL,

INC.

5 Hanover Square, Fourth Floor

New York, NY 10004

(212) 931-8300

Case 1:07-cv-05305-AKH Document 30 Filed 05/29/2008 Page 2 of 2
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) ENCO Industries, Inc. ) ) Under ContractNo. SPM4A6-12-D-0243 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:
APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 59073, 59150

Mr. Michael Rosa

President Daniel K. Poling, Esq.

DLA ChiefTrial Attorney Edward R. Murray, Esq.

Trial Attorney DLA Aviation Richmond, VA DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE By email dated 28 January 2016, appellant ENCO Industries, Inc., informed the Board that it wishes to withdraw its appeals. Accordingly the Board hereby dismisses the appeals, ASBCA Nos. 59073, 59150, with prejudice. Dated: 9 February 2016

Adminis rative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCA Nos. 59073, 59150, Appeals ofENCO Industries, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Exhibit
31.1





Section
302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer





I, David
Taigen, certify that:





1.   I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Corporate Outfitters,
Inc.





2.   Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances   under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;





3.   Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report;





4.   The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a)   designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b)   evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly  report
(the  "Evaluation Date"); and





c)   presented
in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;





5.   The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):


a)   all
significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;
and
 
 b)   any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls.





6.   The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant efficiencies and material
weaknesses.





Date:
February 13, 2008





/s/
David
Taigen


Dave
Taigen


Chief
Executive Officer and


Chief Financial Officer