alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2014211EN.01004603.xml

| 17.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 211/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 211/46

---

Corrigendum to Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 118/2012 of 15 June 2012 amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 270 of 4 October 2012
  )

On page 41, in recital 2:

for:

‘Regulation (EU) No 692/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2011 concerning European statistics on tourism’,

read:

‘Regulation (EU) No 692/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2011 concerning European statistics on tourism and repealing Council Directive 95/57/EC’

---
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 25, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00207-CR

DEONTAE CALDWELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1349320

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary of a habitation with the 

intent to commit theft and sentenced to confinement for fifteen years in the 

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on December 2, 

2013. No motion for new trial was filed. Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed 

until February 25, 2014 .
2

A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence 

is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of 

Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 

981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, 

a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. 

Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. 

Id.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Wise.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
The HERTZ CORPORATION, et al., petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.

No. 17-859.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
Exhibit 11.0



PAMRAPO BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                                                                         |  |                                      |           |                                     |   |          
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------ | --------- | ----------------------------------- | - | ---------
|                                                                                         |  | Three Months Ended September 30,2004 |           | Nine Months Ended September 30,2004
|Income available to common stockholders                                                  |  | $                                    | 2,092,492 |                                     | $ | 6,004,077
|Weighted average shares outstanding                                                      |  |                                      | 4,974,913 |                                     |   | 4,974,581
|Basic earnings per share                                                                 |  | $                                    | 0.42      |                                     | $ | 1.21     
|Income for diluted earnings per share                                                    |  | $                                    | 2,092,492 |                                     | $ | 6,004,077
|Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding for diluted computation |  |                                      | 4,988,785 |                                     |   | 4,996,089
|Diluted earnings per share                                                               |  | $                                    | 0.42      |                                     | $ | 1.20
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4191 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4191

 To exclude from consideration as income under the housing assistance 
  programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development amounts 
   received by a family from the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
 service-related disabilities of a member of the family, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 16, 2019

 Mr. Carbajal (for himself, Mr. Smucker, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. 
Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Cisneros) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To exclude from consideration as income under the housing assistance 
  programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development amounts 
   received by a family from the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
 service-related disabilities of a member of the family, 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 ``Home for the Brave Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF VETERANS DISABILITY BENEFITS FROM INCOME.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3531 
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 15. EXCLUSION OF VETERANS DISABILITY BENEFITS FROM INCOME.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any amounts received 
by any member of a household or family as disability compensation under 
chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, or dependency and indemnity 
compensation under chapter 13 of such title, shall not be considered as 
income of such household or family for purposes of--
            ``(1) determining the eligibility of such family or 
        household for assistance under any program for housing 
        assistance administered by the Secretary;
            ``(2) the amount of benefits payable to or on behalf of 
        such family or household under such program; or
            ``(3) the amount of rent paid by such family or household 
        for occupancy of a dwelling unit assisted under any such 
        program.''.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2012076EN.01002201.xml

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 76/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 76/22

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 138/2011

of 2 December 2011

amending Annex XI (Electronic communication, audiovisual services and information society) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 101/2011 of 30 September 2011 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 101/2011 of 30 September 2011 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2011/61/EU of 31 January 2011 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by the State of Israel with regard to automated processing of personal data (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2011/61/EU of 31 January 2011 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by the State of Israel with regard to automated processing of personal data (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 5em (Commission Decision 2010/625/EU) of Annex XI to the Agreement:

| ‘5en. | 32011 D 0061: Commission Decision 2011/61/EU of 31 January 2011 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by the State of Israel with regard to automated processing of personal data (OJ L 27, 1.2.2011, p. 39).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘5en.

32011 D 0061: Commission Decision 2011/61/EU of 31 January 2011 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by the State of Israel with regard to automated processing of personal data (OJ L 27, 1.2.2011, p. 39).’

Article 2

The text of Decision 2011/61/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 3 December 2011, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 2 December 2011.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kurt JÄGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 318, 1.12.2011, p. 39.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 27, 1.2.2011, p. 39.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4253 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to allow a recipient of an 

institutional aid grant to use funds under such grant to establish, improve, or expand partnerships with child care providers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to allow a 

recipient of an institutional aid grant to use funds under 

such grant to establish, improve, or expand partnerships 

with child care providers. 

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 ‘‘Empower Parents in 

5 College Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4253 IH

1 SEC. 2. INSTITUTIONAL AID GRANT AUTHORIZED ACTIVI2 TIES. 

3 Section 311(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

4 (20 U.S.C. 1057(c)) is amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating paragraph (13) as para6 graph (14); and 

7 (2) by inserting after paragraph (12) the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(13) Establishing, improving, or expanding 

10 partnerships with child care providers.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Thirplus MOOSE, aka Thirplus Tino Moose Bey, petitioner, v. J.E. KRUEGER, Warden.

No. 17-5616.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Robert COLE, et al., petitioners, v. MERITOR, INC., et al.

No. 17-413.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Anthony Stocker MINA, petitioner, v. CHESTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, et al.

No. 17-125.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3866 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption of serviceconnection for certain veterans with tinnitus or hearing loss, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 2019 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ (for herself, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. JAYAPAL, 

Ms. NORTON, Mr. SERRANO, and Mr. KHANNA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption of service-connection for certain veterans with 

tinnitus or hearing loss, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hear our Heroes Act 

5 of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3866 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE-CONNECTION FOR 

2 HEARING LOSS AND TINNITUS. 

3 Section 1112 of title 38, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following new sub5 section: 

6 ‘‘(d)(1) For purposes of section 1110 of this title, and 

7 subject to the provisions of section 1113 of this title, diag8 nosed hearing loss, tinnitus, or both of a veteran described 

9 in paragraph (2) shall be considered to have been incurred 

10 in or aggravated by the active military, naval, or air serv11 ice of the veteran, notwithstanding that there is no record 

12 of evidence of such hearing loss or tinnitus, as the case 

13 may be, during the period of such service. 

14 ‘‘(2) A veteran described in this paragraph is a vet15 eran who while on active military, naval, or air service— 

16 ‘‘(A) was assigned to a military occupational 

17 specialty or equivalent described in paragraph (3); 

18 or 

19 ‘‘(B) served in combat. 

20 ‘‘(3) A military occupational specialty or equivalent 

21 referred to in paragraph (2)(A) is a military occupational 

22 specialty or equivalent in which individuals assigned to 

23 such military occupational specialty or equivalent in the 

24 active military, naval, or air service are or were likely to 

25 be exposed to a sufficiently high level of acoustic trauma 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3866 IH

1 as to result in permanent hearing loss, tinnitus, or both, 

2 as determined by the Secretary.’’. 

3 SEC. 3. MODIFICATION TO SCHEDULE FOR RATES FOR DIS4 ABILITY COMPENSATION. 

5 Pursuant to section 1155 of title 38, United States 

6 Code, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall adjust the 

7 schedule of rating disabilities to establish a minimum dis8 ability rating for a veteran who requires a hearing aid be9 cause of a service-connected disability, including pursuant 

10 to section 1112(d) of such title, as amended by section 

11 2. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
##### 



(i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Partnership.
  By
    
    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. TietzOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp.,General Partner of the Partnership/s/ John KallasJohn Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of CronosCapital Corp., General Partner of the Partnership
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as
required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to
the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
Tiran CASTEEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6220.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/08/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       45,306
COMMITMENTS
   8,882    2,306    8,363   19,921   24,447   37,166   35,116    8,140   10,190

CHANGES FROM 12/01/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,012)
    -152      393      176     -845     -668     -822      -99     -190     -913

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    19.6      5.1     18.5     44.0     54.0     82.0     77.5     18.0     22.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       62)
       7       11       18       26       27       48       50
```

----

Updated December 11, 2009
Ronnie FRISKEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5967.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE
MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       5,636,000
<SECURITIES>                                 5,186,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,593,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   554,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,804,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,853,000
<PP&E>                                       2,758,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,059,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,483,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,813,000
<BONDS>                                        107,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    501,000
<COMMON>                                    35,788,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,625,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,483,000
<SALES>                                     14,621,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,621,000
<CGS>                                        3,853,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,059,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,524,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                75,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (381,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                419,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            419,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   419,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 09/15/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       54,366
COMMITMENTS
   4,383   12,903    5,078   35,183   29,322   44,644   47,303    9,722    7,063

CHANGES FROM 09/08/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,213)
    -254    4,526    1,866    6,451    1,056    8,063    7,448     -850     -235

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     8.1     23.7      9.3     64.7     53.9     82.1     87.0     17.9     13.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       31)
      10        9        9       11        9       26       22
```

----

Updated September 18, 2009
# C_2014282EN.01002501.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014 — Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10)

(Case T-137/09 RENV) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark R 10 - Unregistered earlier national word mark R 10 - Assignment of the national trade mark - Proof of ownership of the earlier trade mark))

2014/C 282/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aurelio Muñoz Molina (Petrer, Spain)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between DL Sports & Marketing Ltda and Aurelio Muñoz Molina.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nike International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) before the Court of Justice and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nike International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

1

---