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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3771 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3771

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions 
  for the relief of victims of the Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.

    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 ``Philippines Charitable Giving 
Assistance Act''.

SEC. 2. ACCELERATION OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR CHARITABLE CASH 
              CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RELIEF OF VICTIMS OF TYPHOON HAIYAN IN 
              THE PHILIPPINES.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of section 170 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, a taxpayer may treat any contribution described 
in subsection (b) made after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
before April 15, 2014, as if such contribution was made on December 31, 
2013, and not in 2014.
    (b) Contribution Described.--A contribution is described in this 
subsection if such contribution is a cash contribution made for the 
relief of victims in areas affected by Typhoon Haiyan, for which a 
charitable contribution deduction is allowable under section 170 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
    (c) Recordkeeping.--In the case of a contribution described in 
subsection (b), a telephone bill showing the name of the donee 
organization, the date of the contribution, and the amount of the 
contribution shall be treated as meeting the recordkeeping requirements 
of section 170(f)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 24, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134137 & (20) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134137 

 COA: 274184 

Wayne CC: 02-006678-01 

STANLEY JEROME BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of April 28, 2008, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals. On order 

of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for a hearing to determine whether 

defendant received the effective assistance of counsel, and whether newly discovered 

evidence produced in the civil suit filed on behalf of the complainant requires a new trial. 

People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973). In reviewing the assistance provided by 

counsel, the circuit court shall determine if the defendant's trial attorney was ineffective 

for failing to procure the National Counsel on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence staff 

activity logs before trial, and for failing to cross-examine the complainant regarding 

inconsistencies in her trial testimony, and between her trial testimony, preliminary 

examination testimony, and what she claimed in the initial police report. 

We further ORDER the Wayne Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative 

Order 2003-03, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint 

counsel to represent the defendant in the proceedings on remand. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

d0903 

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. 

September 10, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 3.3

            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                 BIOCORAL, INC.

It is hereby certified that:

      1. The name of the corporation is Biocoral, Inc.

      2. The certificate of incorporation of the corporation is hereby amended
by striking out Article Fourth thereof and by substituting in lieu of said
Articles the following new Articles:

            "FOURTH: The total number of shares of stock which the Corporation
            shall have authority to issue is one hundred and one million
            (101,000,000) shares of the par value of $.001 each, to be
            designated Common Stock. Each share of the Corporation's issued and
            outstanding Class A and Class B Common Stock shall be split on a
            1-50 basis effective on April 16, 2001. Each holder of shares of
            Class A and Class B Common Stock, par value $.001 par value per
            share, respectively, will receive a certificate representing in the
            aggregate, that number of fully-paid and nonassessable shares of
            capital stock equal to the number of shares of capital stock then
            held of record by such holder divided by 50 and shall not be
            required to surrender for exchange or cancellation any certificates
            for capital stock of the Corporation held by such holder."

      3. The amendments of the certificate of incorporation herein certified
have been duly adopted and written consent has been given in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.

Date: April 17, 2001


/s/ Nasser Nassiri
------------------
Nasser Nassiri, President
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.60


                             CKE RESTAURANTS, INC.

                                   AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      This Amendment (the "Amendment") to Employment Agreement is made effective
as of February 1, 2005 (the "Effective Date"), by and between CKE Restaurants,
Inc. (the "Company") and Andrew F. Puzder (the "Employee").

                                    RECITALS

      A.    The Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement,
dated as of January __, 2004 (the "Agreement").

      B.    The Company and Founder now desire to amend the Agreement as set
forth below.

                                   AGREEMENT

      1.    Bonus Calculation. Clauses (v) and (vi) of Section 4(e) of the
Agreement shall be amended in their entirety to read as follows:

            "(v) If Actual Income is greater than 100%, but less than 120%, of
            Target Income, Employee shall receive a bonus equal to the Current
            Base multiplied by the percentage determined as follows:

                       100% + [% in excess of 100% x 150%]
                               -------------------
                                       20

            (vi) If Actual Income is 120% or greater of Target Income, Employee
            shall receive a bonus equal to 250% of Current Base."

      2.    Definitions. Terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have
the respective meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.

      3.    Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in multiple
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall
constitute one Amendment.

      4.    Terms and Conditions of Agreement. Except as specifically amended by
this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.

                            [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
<PAGE>
      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed by the undersigned as of
the date first written above.


                                             /s/ Andrew F. Puzder
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Andrew F. Puzder



                                             CKE RESTAURANTS, INC.



                                             By:  /s/ Peter Churm
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Peter Churm
                                                  Director and Chairman of the
                                                  Compensation Committee of the
                                                  Board of Directors
----

(2004/C 33 E/283)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2580/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   Expectations of an increase in the production of counterfeit euro bank notes in thinly-populated countries where the euro is important as a parallel currency

Source: The 18 July 2003 edition of ‘Rotterdams Dagblad’, a Dutch newspaper.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136495 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136495 

 COA: 272369 

Wayne CC: 06-004272-01

ROOSEVELT THEODORE WATTS, JR., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and 

we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals. Reversal of the defendant’s convictions 

is not the proper remedy for the trial court’s failure to articulate its reasons for admitting 

a prior conviction for impeachment on the record, as required by MRE 609(b). While 

retaining jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals shall remand this case to the Wayne Circuit 

Court with directions to make a record of its decision to permit impeachment of the 

defendant with an armed robbery conviction. Upon completion of that analysis by the 

trial court, the Court of Appeals shall consider whether the trial court abused its 

discretion in admitting the prior conviction and, if not, shall also consider the other issues 

raised by the defendant, but not addressed during the initial review of the case. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

CORRIGAN, J., would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons 

stated by the dissenting judge, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration of other issues raised by the defendant. 

p0903 

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. 

September 10, 2008 

 Clerk
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00686-CV

Adalberto LUNA Sr,

Appellant

v.

Esther P. GALLARDO,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CVQ-000782-D3

Honorable Elma T. Salinas Ender, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 27, 2010

DISMISSED

When appellant Adalberto Luna Sr. filed this appeal, he was required to pay a $175.00 filing

fee. See TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b)(1), 51.941(a) (Vernon 2005); id. §§ 51.208, 51.0051

(Vernon Supp. 2009); TEXAS SUPREME COURT ORDER REGARDING FEES CHARGED IN CIVIL CASES

IN THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURTS OF APPEALS AND BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 07-9138, Aug. 28, 2007) § B.1.(a). Appellant did
04-09-00686-CV

-2-

not pay the required filing fee. Accordingly, the clerk of this court notified appellant by letter on

October 23, 2009, that his notice of appeal was conditionally filed and the filing fee was due no later

than November 16, 2009. On December 15, 2009, when the fee remained unpaid, this court ordered

that appellant must, not later than December 28, 2009, either (1) pay the applicable filing fee or

(2) provide written proof to this court that he/she is indigent or otherwise excused by statute or the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See TEX.R.APP. P. 5 (“A party who is not

excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay – at the time an item is presented for

filing – whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may

enforce this rule by any order that is just.”). The court advised appellant that if he failed to respond

satisfactorily within the time ordered, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

The filing fee has not been paid, and appellant has not otherwise responded to our December

14, 2009 order. We therefore order this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. We further

order appellant to bear all costs of this appeal. 

PER CURIAM
# C_2011120EN.01001101.xml

| 16.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/11

---

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2011 — World Wide Tobacco España v Commission

(Case T-37/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Deterrent effect - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Cooperation)

2011/C 120/27

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: World Wide Tobacco España SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: initially M. Odriozola Alén, M. Marañon Hermoso and A. Emch, then M. Odriozola Alén, M. Barrantes Diaz and A. João Vide, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in the Commission decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | sets the amount of the fine imposed on World Wide Tobacco España SA in Article 3 of the Commission decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) at EUR 1 579 500; |
| --- | --- |

1.

sets the amount of the fine imposed on World Wide Tobacco España SA in Article 3 of the Commission decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) at EUR 1 579 500;

| 2. | dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | orders World Wide Tobacco España to bear three quarters of its own costs and three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs and one quarter of the costs incurred by World Wide Tobacco España. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders World Wide Tobacco España to bear three quarters of its own costs and three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs and one quarter of the costs incurred by World Wide Tobacco España.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, of 2.4.2005.

1

---
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Tom Hofer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
Vendalux Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the Annual period ended March 31, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Vendalux Corporation.

By:  /s/
   -----------------------------
Name: Tom Hofer
Title:   Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be
retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
MILLS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. Archie R. HOLMES, Holmes Agribiz, Inc., L & W Farms, Inc., And E.B. Harris, Inc./Auctioneers, Defendants.

No. COA15-720.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part.
September 10 2008
# C_2012355EN.01001902.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Kuwait Petroleum and Others v Commission

(Case T-370/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Significant added value - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence)

2012/C 355/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Kuwait Petroleum Corp. (Shuwaikh, Kuwait), Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd (Woking, United Kingdom) and Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Hull, Solicitor, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, and by L. Gyselen, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd and Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd and Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
1430.

#### Wilson *v.*The State.

Indictment for larceny from the house, from Spalding superior court — Judge Beagan. September 16, 1908.

Argued November 10,

Decided November 24, 1908.

The indictment charged Wilson with having stolen from the depot of the Central of Georgia Bailway Company a pair of “ladies’ black button shoes, Selz make.” The State introduced testimony to the effect that a pair of shoes of the kind described in the indictment were missed from a box received at the depot, and that about that time a pair of shoes of that kind were found in a paper sack behind the scales in the depot; that the pair in the paper sack were allowed to remain where they were found, until the next day, when Joe Day, an employee at'the depot, called the defendant into the depot and handed the shoes to him; that the defendant put them under his coat and started across the street, towards Day’s house; that Hale, an employee at the depot, called to the defendant to stop; he did so; Hale went to him and asked for the' sack that he had under his coat; he said he had no.sack, and Hale then reached out and took the shoes from under the defendant’s coat. , Day testified, that the defendant boarded at his house and came to the depot to get the house key, and he (Day) asked him to take the shoes to the house and leave them. The defendant made-a statement to the jury to the same effect, and said that he knew nothing further about the shoes than he had stated. After con-’ vietion he moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was without evidence to support it; the motion was overruled, and he excepted.

*Thomas ~W. Thurman,*for plaintiff in error,

cited Penal Code,, §984; 2 *Ga. App.*534; 84 *Ga.*466; 93 *Ga.*557.

*O. H. B. Bloodworth, solicitor-general, O. H. B. Bloodworth Jr.,,*contra.

Russell, J.

The circumstantial evidence, which is consistent with the guilt of the accused, not being inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of his innocence, and being quite insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, an intent to steal, a new trial should have been granted.

*Judgment reversed.*
# CE2004070EN.01025202.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/252 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/252

---

(2004/C 70 E/272)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3307/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Free-standing ovens

Subject:

Will the Commission state whether there is any EU legislation that prevents the retail and manufacture of free-standing ovens (with a shoulder height oven/grill compartment) on the grounds of safety?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

(11 December 2003)

Electrical equipment (e.g. electrical ovens) placed on the European market has to fulfil the essential health and safety requirements of Council Directive 73/23/EEC (1).

1

Article 2 of this Directive states that Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that electrical equipment may be placed on the market only if it:

| — | is constructed in accordance with good engineering practice in safety matters in force in the Community; |
| --- | --- |

—

is constructed in accordance with good engineering practice in safety matters in force in the Community;

| — | does not endanger the safety of persons, domestic animals or property when properly installed and maintained and used in applications for which it was made. |
| --- | --- |

—

does not endanger the safety of persons, domestic animals or property when properly installed and maintained and used in applications for which it was made.

The principal elements of the safety objectives are listed in annex I to the Directive.

In order to fulfil the obligations of the Directive a manufacturer of electrical ovens may, on a voluntary basis, apply European harmonised standards under the Directive. Having applied a harmonised standard, a manufacturer can be assured that the product fulfils the requirements of the Directive covered by such a standard.

Member States are obliged to take measures against the placing on the market of any unsafe and non-compliant product. Member States have to inform other Member States and the Commission, indicating the grounds for such a decision.

---

(1)  Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limit, OJ L 77, 26.3.1973 amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993, OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.

1

---