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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3845 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3845

 To require the Administrator of NASA to assess the cost and schedule 
   implications of extending science missions beyond planned mission 
                               lifetimes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2014

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Administrator of NASA to assess the cost and schedule 
   implications of extending science missions beyond planned mission 
                               lifetimes.

    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 ``Assessing NASA Science Mission 
Extensions Act''.

SEC. 2. SCIENCE MISSION EXTENSIONS.

    Section 30504 of title 51, United States Code is amended to read as 
follows:
``Sec. 30504. Assessment of science mission extensions
    ``(a) Assessment.--The Administrator shall carry out biennial 
reviews within each of the Science divisions to assess the cost and 
benefits of extending the date of the termination of data collection 
for those missions that have exceeded their planned mission lifetime. 
In conducting these assessments, the Administrator shall consider--
            ``(1) the potential continued benefit of instruments on 
        missions that are beyond their planned mission lifetime; and
            ``(2) the cost and schedule impacts, if any, of mission 
        extension on other NASA activities and science missions.
    ``(b) Consultation Requirement.--When deciding whether to extend 
science missions with an operational component, the Administrator shall 
consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 
any other affected Federal agency.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2008313EN.01005602.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/56

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 October 2008 — Barbin v European Parliament

(Case F-44/07) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - Procedure for the allocation of merit points in the European Parliament - Illegality of the instructions governing that procedure - Examination of comparative merits)

(2008/C 313/101)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and R. Ignătescu, later by C. Burgos, A. Lukošiūtė and R. Ignătescu, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of 16 September 2006 to allocate one merit point to the applicant under the 2005 promotion procedure and, secondly, for a declaration that paragraph I.2(c) of the ‘Implementing measures relating to the allocation of merit and promotion points’ of the European Parliament of 10 May 2006 is illegal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the application;

| 2. | orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155 of 7.7.2007, p. 45.

1

---
State v. Mark Wayne Ballard

125P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

*382Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Mark Wayne Ballard, Pro Se.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of April 2016 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
----

(2004/C 33 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2228/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Problems with transfrontier working

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The Honourable Member asks about problems connected with Dutch rules on pensions for frontier workers.

It is not clear to the Commission whether the pensions to which the Honourable Member refers are those provided by the social security system or are supplementary/private pensions.

In the field of social security pensions, Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 (1) sets out a system of co-ordination of social security systems for people who move between the Member States, so that they will not be disadvantaged because they have exercised their right to free movement. The social security contributions a person has paid in one Member State are not transferred to his or her social security contributions in another Member State. Rather, the Regulation provides that a person will receive an old age pension from each of the Member States where he or she has been insured for more than 12 months.

The Commission considers that the Community rules on the co-ordination of social security systems adequately protect people who move between the Member States. However, to improve this protection further, the Commission proposed a modernisation and simplification of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in 1998, and it is hoped that this proposal will be adopted by the end of 2003.

Turning to supplementary pensions, the Commission is very much aware of the problems the present lack of ‘portability’ can create in the field of free movement of workers, a fundamental right under the Treaty. In this respect it should be recalled, that Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 safeguards the supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the Community (2) only in certain circumstances and under certain conditions. The Commission is currently consulting the social partners on whether it would be appropriate to follow up this Directive with a second instrument aimed at the portability of supplementary pensions. Before considering what further action is appropriate and necessary, the Commission will await the outcome of this consultation.

In addition, contributors to supplementary or private pensions may encounter tax obstacles where their pension schemes are administered by an organisation in a Member State other than that in which they reside. The Commission issued a communication on these problems in 2001 (3). It is currently examining the compatibility with Community law of rules applied by a number of Member States.

----

(1)  Last consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(2)OJ L 209, 25.7.1998.

(3)  COM(2001) 214 final of 19.4.2001.

----
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

19 October 2007

Case C-238/07 P

**Derya Beyatli**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeals – Civil service – Open competition for citizens of the Republic of Cyprus – Notice of competition – Time-limits – Complaint – Letter sent to the Head of the Commission Delegation to Cyprus)

**Appeal:**against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04 *Beyatli and Candan* v *Commission* [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000 by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the application by
the applicants seeking the annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/A/1/03 for the establishment
of a reserve list of assistant administrators of Cypriot nationality not to admit them to the oral tests in that competition.

**Held:**The appeal is dismissed. Mrs Beyatli is ordered to pay the costs.

**Summary**

*Appeals – Grounds – Plea alleging failure to produce documents – Documents not relevant for ruling on the admissibility of
the action – Appeal dismissed*
**Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 – Commission v Greece**

**(Case C-406/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Direct taxation – Taxation of dividends from shares in companies – Rate of taxation for partnerships

1.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope (Art.
43 EC and 56 EC) (see para. 22)*

2.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Free movement of capital – Tax legislation – Corporation tax
(Art. 43 EC and 56 EC; EEA Agreement, Arts 31 and 40) (see paras 25-28, operative part)*

3.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation (Art. 43 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 40) (see paras
39-43, operative part)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC – National rules providing for tax exemption for dividends distributed by national companies but not for dividends distributed by companies whose seat is in another Member State. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by applying a tax regime for dividends from abroad that is less favourable than that applied to domestic dividends, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 56 EC and the corresponding articles of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, namely Articles 31 and 40 thereof; |

Declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of the Income Tax Code (Law 2238/1994, as amended by Law 3296/2004),
by which foreign partnerships in Greece are taxed more heavily than domestic partnerships, the Hellenic Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
SUSAN HAWK Criminal DistrictAttorney Dallas County, Texas

November 12, 2015 

### Mr. Michael F. Stauffacher COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Supervising Attorney, Writs Section 

### Texas Court ofCriminal Appeals foUV'16 2015 P.O. Box 12308 Austin, Texas 78711 

## AbeUcosta,Cferk RE: Ex Parte Stanley Orson Mozee, WR-82, 467-01 & Ex Parte Dennis Lee Allen, WR-56, 666-03
Dear Mr. Stauffacher: 

### OnFebruary 4, 2015 this Court remanded theabove-referenced cases to thetrial court toprovide the trial prosecutor with an opportunity to respond to the Brady claims of both Applicants. Article 11.07writs werepreviously filed in both casesallegingmultiple grounds forrelief. Both causes were transmitted to this Court with agreed findings that Applicants were entitled to relief based on Brady violations and the presentmentof false evidence. Pursuant to the remand order, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on October 26 and 27, 2015 during which the trial prosecutor testified regarding the Brady claims. On November 10, 2015, the trial court entered and filed its Findings of Fact on Remand specifically finding the 

### trial prosecutor's testimony to be credible. The trial court also entered a finding that both the trialprosecutor's testimony and his trialnotes support that "he turned over thejailhouse letters to defense counsel" (the Brady information). Given the trial court's findings on remand and that both the trial court and the State had 

### previously agreed that Applicants are entitled to relief under Brady, the State is respectfully requesting this Court to provide the State withanopportunity to respond and/or object to the trial court's Findings ofFact on Remand. On October 27, 2015 the State requested a transcript of the evidentiaryhearing. As of today's 

### date, the courtreporter has not completed the transcript. The State expects thetranscript will be completed sometime during the week ofNovember 16, 2015. Accordingly, the State anticipates being able to respond by December 15,2015.

Frank Crowley Courts Building, 133 North Riverfront Boulevard, LB-19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 (214) 653-3600Letter to Mr. Michael F. Stauffacher November 12,2015
. Page 2 of2 

### Please let me know if you have any questions or if you needadditional information. Thank you foTYouranticipated courtesies.

PATRICIA CfcMMINGS Assistant District Attorney Conviction Integrity Unit Dallas County, Texas

cc: Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk ofthe Court Mr. Gary Udashen,Attorney for'Dennis Lee Allen Mr. Ezekiel Tyson, Attorney for Stanley Mozee

Frank Crowley Courts Building, 133 NorthIndustrial Boulevard, LB-19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 (214) 653-3600
Mike CAMPBELL, Rhonda Campbell, Gail Campbell, John Fox, Jr., Sylvia Fox, Alan Harpe, Robin Harpe, Bill Sherrill, Norma Jean Sherrill, Richard Gordon, Susanne Gordon, Joe Brown, Patty Hewitt, Larry Marlin, First RX Pharmacy, Beth Bush, Charles Mcniel, Carol Mcniel, Nga Amador, Jack Moore, Maria Moore, Jody Parlier, Cathy Parlier, David Lynch, Judith Lynch, Victor Mcintyre, Louise McIntyre, Brian Fox, Carrie Norman, Charles Johnson, Mary Johnson, Landrea Rhyne, Tom Brandon, Sara Brandon, Michael Kepley, Sandy Kepley, Vince Cherry, James Foxworthy, Sheila Foxworthy, Chuck Dockery, Kim Dockery, Bill Murdock, Jeannie Murdock, Shirley Silva, Brent Warren, Michelle Warren, Jim Howard, Janet Howard, HCRI North Carolina Properties III, LP DBA Brookdale Senior Living Center, Louis Gordon, Travis Blackwelder, Statesville Bovine And Equine Center, Jared Reimann, Aimee Reimann, Lee Shepard, Cecil Davis, Imogene Davis, John Strikeleather III, Heritage Knitting Company, LLC, Judy Voelske, Voelske Automotive, Cooney Properties, LLC, and Dr. Chip Cooney, Petitioners, v. The CITY OF STATESVILLE, North Carolina, Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. and Roserock Holdings, LLC, Respondents.

No. COA15-329.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3935 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to provide for country 

of origin labeling for dairy products. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2014 

Mr. POCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to provide 

for country of origin labeling for dairy products. 

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 ‘‘Dairy COOL Act of 

5 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING FOR DAIRY PROD7 UCTS. 

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 281 of the Agricultural 

9 Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (2)— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3935 IH

1 (A) in subparagraph (A)— 

2 (i) in clause (x), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

3 the end; 

4 (ii) in clause (xi), by striking the pe5 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

6 (iii) by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(xii) dairy products.’’; and 

9 (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting 

10 ‘‘(other than clause (xii) of that subpara11 graph)’’ after ‘‘subparagraph (A)’’; 

12 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through 

13 (9) as paragraphs (4) through (10), respectively; 

14 and 

15 (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol16 lowing: 

17 ‘‘(3) DAIRY PRODUCT.—The term ‘dairy prod18 uct’ means— 

19 ‘‘(A) fluid milk; 

20 ‘‘(B) cheese, including cottage cheese and 

21 cream cheese; 

22 ‘‘(C) yogurt; 

23 ‘‘(D) ice cream; 

24 ‘‘(E) butter; and 

25 ‘‘(F) any other dairy product.’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3935 IH

1 (b) NOTICE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.—Section 

2 282(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 

3 U.S.C. 1638a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

4 following: 

5 ‘‘(5) DESIGNATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

6 FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A retailer of a covered 

8 commodity that is a dairy product shall des9 ignate the origin of the covered commodity as— 

10 ‘‘(i) each country in which or from 

11 which the one or more dairy ingredients or 

12 dairy components of the covered com13 modity were produced, originated, or 

14 sourced; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) each country in which the cov16 ered commodity was processed. 

17 ‘‘(B) STATE, REGION, LOCALITY OF THE

18 UNITED STATES.—With respect to a covered 

19 commodity that is a dairy product produced ex20 clusively in the United States, designation by a 

21 retailer of the State, region, or locality of the 

22 United States where the covered commodity 

23 was produced shall be sufficient to identify the 

24 United States as the country of origin.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1388.

#### Wells *v.*Mill-Haven Company.

Motion for new trial, from city court of Sylvania — Judge Boy-kin. August 14, 1908.

Argued November 25,

Decided December 8, 1908.

*E. K. Overstreet, A. M. Chapman, E. S. White, A. B. Lovettr.*for plaintiff in error.

*Travis <& Travis, W. L. Gignilliat, E. L. Eoward,*contra.

Powell, J.

The case is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of *A., K. & N. R. Co.*v *Strickland,*114 *Ga.*998 (41 S. E. 501). The motion for new trial is still pending in the court below,, and stands for hearing at the next regular term of. that court. *Eady*v. *A. C. L. R. Co.,*129 *Ga.*363 (58 S. E. 895).

*Judgment reversed.*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10876

KELLY B. LANGLEY; CLASSIC CLIPS, L.C.,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CHASE BANK USA NA,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

Dist. Ct. No. 3:10-CV-587

Before JOLLY and HAYNES, Circuit Judges, and VANCE , District Judge.

*

PER CURIAM:

**

Kelly Langley and his company, Classic Clips, individually, and on behalf

of a putative class, sued Chase Bank for alleged breaches of the implied duty of

good faith and fair dealing under Delaware law arising out of a business loan

transaction. The district court granted Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim, reasoning that the facts stated in the complaint, taken

as true, did not state a claim for breach of that duty. Having reviewed and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. *

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not **

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-10876 Document: 00511516886 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2011
No. 10-10876

considered the pertinent portions of the record, the parties’ briefing, and their

oral arguments in light of Delaware law, we conclude that the district court

made no error warranting reversal. Nemec v. Shrader, 991 A.2d 1120 (Del.

2010). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-10876 Document: 00511516886 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2011
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136310 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ROBERT HUNTER and LORIE HUNTER, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136310 

 COA: 279862 

Oakland CC: 2006-721234-DC 

TAMMY JO HUNTER, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

JEFFREY HUNTER,

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the 

issues: (1) whether the standard for parental fitness in Mason v Simmons, 267 Mich App 

188, 206 (2005), and the courts’ application of Mason here, violate a natural parent’s 

fundamental rights to his or her child, see Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000); (2) if a 

natural parent is found to have been unfit under the appropriate standard and his or her 

lack of fitness led to the child’s established custodial environment with a third party, 

whether the parent’s later fitness at the time he or she seeks custody is relevant to a 

proper fitness determination; (3) whether the lower courts here properly applied the Child 

Custody Act’s presumption favoring the children’s established custodial environment, 

MCL 722.27(1)(c), instead of the presumption in favor of natural parents, MCL 

722.25(1), compare Heltzel v Heltzel, 248 Mich App 1 (2001); (4) whether the trial 

court’s finding of parental unfitness here was against the great weight of the evidence; 

and (5) whether the trial court’s determinations regarding the best interests of the children 

were against the great weight of the evidence. 

p0910 

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 17, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE v. Morris Leavett STITH

173A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 22, 2016

Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, for Stith, Morris Leavett.

Charles G. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of June 2016 by Defendant to Deem Brief Timely Filed:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2008 – Hartmann v OHIM (E)**

**(Case T-302/06)**

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark ‘E’ – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Error of law – Lack of real assessment – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Signs capable of constituting a mark – Letters
and numbers (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 4 and 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29-31)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid
of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 32-35)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Case R 805/2006-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark ‘E’ as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Paul Hartmann AG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark E for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25 – Application No 4316949 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2006 (Case R 805/2006-4); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to pay its own costs as well as those of Paul Hartmann AG. |