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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5406 

To suspend temporarily the duty on over-the-range microwaves. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

Mr. SULLIVAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on over-the-range 

microwaves. 

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

3 SECTION 1. OVER-THE-RANGE MICROWAVES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.l.l Microwave oven and range 

hood combinations with oven 

capacity exceeding 45.0 liters 

(provided for in subheading 

8516.50.00) ........................... 1.8% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5406 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
WALKER v. HAMER

No. COA05-556

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Forsyth (00CVD3988).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. CURTIS.

No. COA05-816.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 21, 2006.

Certification Date March 13, 2006.

Appeal from Rutherford (03CRS52373).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
(August 11, 2005)

#### Midori Shimamoto, as Administratrix of the Estate of Bart Schwartz, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v S&F Warehouses, Inc., et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[800 NYS2d 667]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Lottie E. Wilkins, J.), entered December 18, 2003, and July 19, 2004, which *267dismissed the complaint, cross claims, and third-party complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to present a prima facie case at trial, and bringing up for review a prior ruling dismissing the complaint as against the defendant law firm, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the complaint and cross claims reinstated as against all defendants-respondents, the third-party complaint reinstated, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for defendants’ alleged failure, in enforcing a warehouseman’s lien on a quantity of spun rayon fabric (known as “ultra cashmere”) owned by plaintiffs, to sell such goods in a commercially reasonable manner *(see*UCC 7-210 [1], [9]). The Court of Appeals previously remanded the case for a new trial, at which plaintiffs were to have an opportunity to prove “how some aspect of the sale rendered it commercially unreasonable, resulting in lower proceeds than a commercially reasonable sale would have produced” (99 NY2d 165, 176 [2002]). The Court of Appeals specified that plaintiffs were required to show that “a commercial market for ultra cashmere existed at the time of the sale [1991],” so that a commercially reasonable sale “would have yielded proceeds in excess of "the warehouse lien and the outstanding customs lien, sufficient to warrant a recovery in damages” *(id.).*

On remand, the trial court excluded plaintiffs’ proffer of testimony from a number of expert witnesses estimating ultra cashmere’s market value in 1991, which estimates were based on comparison to the 1991 market value of similar spun rayon fabrics, given that ultra cashmere was no longer in production at that time. Having refused to admit such evidence, the trial court dismissed the complaint at the close of plaintiffs’ case on the ground that plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie case. This was error. Plaintiffs’ evidence concerning the market value of ultra cashmere in 1991 was relevant, admissible and sufficient to make out a prima facie case. The weaknesses of such evidence, if any, were for the jury to consider in determining whether plaintiffs had carried their burden of proof.

Finally, the pretrial dismissal of the complaint as against the defendant law firm, which organized the sale, was erroneous, given that the Court of Appeals had specifically reinstated the complaint against the law firm *(see*99 NY2d at 176). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman and Catterson, JJ.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 525 

To amend the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act 

of 1996 to require that, in order to determine that a democratically 

elected government in Cuba exists, the government extradite to the 

United States convicted felon William Morales and all other individuals 

who are living in Cuba in order to escape prosecution or confinement 

for criminal offenses committed in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2007 

Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. FOSSELLA, and Mr. MCCOTTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 

(LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 to require that, in order 

to determine that a democratically elected government 

in Cuba exists, the government extradite to the United 

States convicted felon William Morales and all other 

individuals who are living in Cuba in order to escape 

prosecution or confinement for criminal offenses committed in the United States. 

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


frosa on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 525 IH

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO LIBERTAD ACT. 

2 Section 206 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 

3 Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6066) 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ after 

6 the semicolon; 

7 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and 

8 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(7) has proven its respect for the democratic 

11 rule of law by ceasing to provide a safe harbor to 

12 individuals who have been legally indicted or con13 victed of serious criminal offenses, including con14 victed felon William Morales, and all other individ15 uals who have fled from the United States to Cuba 

16 for the sole purpose of avoiding prosecution or con17 finement for serious criminal offenses committed in 

18 the United States.’’. 

Æ 


frosa on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                     77486
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          163468
<PP&E>                                                     37442
<DEPRECIATION>                                             11780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            245957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1377715
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                    6002
<OTHER-SE>                                              (1137760)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              245957
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          168193
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         2674119
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        511666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (3007136)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (3007136)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (3007136)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (.53)


</TABLE>
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




          THIRD AMENDMENT dated as of July 29, 2005 (this “Amendment”) to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated as
of February 27, 2003, as amended (the “Agreement”) by and between TRW Limited (the “Company”) and
Peter J. Lake (“Executive”).




          WHEREAS, in order to extend the term of the Agreement, Executive and Company desire to amend
the Agreement as set forth below;




          In consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows:




          1. Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the
meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.




          2. Amendment to Section 1.b. of the Agreement. Section 1.b. of the Agreement shall be
amended in its entirety to read as follows:





b. Subject to the provisions of Section 7 of this Agreement, Executive shall
be employed by the Company for a period commencing on the Effective Date and
ending on December 31, 2008 (the “Employment Term”) on the terms and subject
to the conditions set forth in this Agreement; provided, however,
that commencing with January 1, 2009 and on each January 1 thereafter (each
an “Extension Date”), the Employment Term shall be automatically extended
for an additional one-year period, unless the Company or Executive provides
the other party hereto 60 days prior written notice before the next
Extension Date that the Employment Term shall not be so extended.



          3. No Other Amendments; Effectiveness. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the
Agreement is ratified and confirmed in all respects. This Amendment shall be effective as of the
date hereof.




          4. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to conflicts of laws principles thereof.




          5. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be
an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same
instrument.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and
year first above written.



	 	 	 
	TRW Limited
	 	Peter J. Lake
	 	 	 
	/s/ David L. Bialosky
	 	/s/ Peter J. Lake
	 
	 	 





By: David L. Bialosky

Title: Attorney-in-Fact
STATE v. Michael Lane McHONE.

No. 639P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 23, 2005.

Janet Moore, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Michael Lane McHone.

Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of November 2005 by the Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed pending the determination of the State's Petition for Discretionary Review by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of November 2005."
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund VII, L.P., (the Partnership) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dean L. Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 25, 2008

|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                                                       
|Dean L. Cash                                                                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL
Financial Services, LLC (General Partner)

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.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00068

- CR

Johnny Todd Preston

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 415th District Court

o f Parker County (CR12

- 0291 )

June 12, 2014

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgmen t. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

______________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
# L_2014216DE.01000501.xml

| 22.7.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 216/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 216/5

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 267/2012 des Rates vom 23. März 2012 über restriktive Maßnahmen gegen Iran und zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 961/2010

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 88 vom 24. März 2012
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 88 vom 24. März 2012

Seite 3, Erwägungsgrund 27a (eingefügt durch die in ABl. L 93 vom 28.3.2014, S. 85, veröffentlichte Berichtigung)

anstatt:

| „(27a) | In Anbetracht der vom iranischen Nuklearprogramm ausgehenden spezifischen Bedrohung für den internationalen Frieden und die internationale Sicherheit und zur Wahrung der Übereinstimmung mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung der Anhänge I und II des Beschlusses 2010/413/GASP sollte die Befugnis zur Änderung der Listen in den Anhängen VII und VIII dieser Verordnung vom Rat ausgeübt werden.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(27a)

In Anbetracht der vom iranischen Nuklearprogramm ausgehenden spezifischen Bedrohung für den internationalen Frieden und die internationale Sicherheit und zur Wahrung der Übereinstimmung mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung der Anhänge I und II des Beschlusses 2010/413/GASP sollte die Befugnis zur Änderung der Listen in den Anhängen VII und VIII dieser Verordnung vom Rat ausgeübt werden.“

muss es heißen:

| „(27a) | In Anbetracht der vom iranischen Nuklearprogramm ausgehenden spezifischen Bedrohung für den internationalen Frieden und die internationale Sicherheit und zur Wahrung der Übereinstimmung mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung der Anhänge I und II des Beschlusses 2010/413/GASP sollte die Befugnis zur Änderung der Listen in den Anhängen VIII und IX dieser Verordnung vom Rat ausgeübt werden.“ |
| --- | --- |

„(27a)

In Anbetracht der vom iranischen Nuklearprogramm ausgehenden spezifischen Bedrohung für den internationalen Frieden und die internationale Sicherheit und zur Wahrung der Übereinstimmung mit dem Verfahren zur Änderung und Überprüfung der Anhänge I und II des Beschlusses 2010/413/GASP sollte die Befugnis zur Änderung der Listen in den Anhängen VIII und IX dieser Verordnung vom Rat ausgeübt werden.“

---
MABE v. MONTAGUE.

No. COA04-218.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 5, 2005.

Certification Date July 25, 2005.

Appeal from the Stokes (02CVS164).

Case without published opinion. We affirm the trial court's judgment as to defendant's appeal and plaintiff's cross-appeal.
STATE v. Jonathan B. MALLWITZ.

No. 285P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney Generals, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of July 2005 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal and Certiorari":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of August 2005."
Michelle L. SAWYERS, f/k/a Michelle L. Turner v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE OF N.C., INC.

No. 264A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 16, 2005.

*491Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 612 S.E.2d 184 (2005), reversing and remanding in part and dismissing as interlocutory in part an appeal from an order entered 9 March 2004 by Judge Robert C. Ervin in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 December 2005.

Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune, L.L.P., by J.D. DuPuy and Robert S. Adden, Jr., Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee.

Caudle & Spears, PA, by Harold C. Spears and C. Grainger Pierce, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.

Justice MARTIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Robert L. Cullen, Andrew A. Corriveau and Andrea 

Hucks, Petitioners, 

v. 

J. Bennett McNeal, B. McNeal Partnership, L.P., 

Anthony R. Porter and Wright's Point Home Owners 

Association, Respondents. 

Appellate Case No. 2011-196126 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal From Beaufort County 

The Honorable Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge 

Opinion No. 27489 

Heard January 15, 2015 – Filed January 28, 2015 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED 

John E. North, Jr., of North & Black, PC, of Beaufort, for 

Petitioners. 

Joel D. Bailey, of The Bailey Law Firm, PA, of Beaufort, 

for Respondents. 
PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of 

Appeals' decision in Cullen v. McNeal, 390 S.C. 470, 702 S.E.2d 378 (Ct. App. 

2010). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
# L_2016205EN.01002701.xml

| 30.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 205/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 205/27

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1075 of 23 March 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parltime and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the content of recovery plans, resolution plans and group resolution plans, the minimum criteria that the competent authority is to assess as regards recovery plans and group recovery plans, the conditions for group financial support, the requirements for independent valuers, the contractual recognition of write-down and conversion powers, the procedures and contents of notification requirements and of notice of suspension and the operational functioning of the resolution colleges

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 184 of 8 July 2016
  )

On the cover page and on page 1, the title of the Regulation should read as follows:

‘Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1075 of 23 March 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the content of recovery plans, resolution plans and group resolution plans, the minimum criteria that the competent authority is to assess as regards recovery plans and group recovery plans, the conditions for group financial support, the requirements for independent valuers, the contractual recognition of write-down and conversion powers, the procedures and contents of notification requirements and of notice of suspension and the operational functioning of the resolution colleges’.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7743

TROY A. GROSS-BEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus F. C. SIZER, JR., Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-883-JFM) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 19, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Troy A. Gross-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Troy Gross-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Gross-Bey v. Sizer , No. CA-98- 883-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 30, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
STAVISSKY v. COMARK, INC.

No. COA05-176.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Certification Date February 6, 2006.

Appeal from NC Industgrial Commission (I.C. #184548).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.