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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3761 

To properly define and distinguish between decorative hearth products and 

vented hearth heaters. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. POMPEO (for himself, Mr. ENYART, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, and Mr. 

KLINE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To properly define and distinguish between decorative hearth 

products and vented hearth heaters. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VENTED HEARTH HEATERS AND DECORATIVE 

4 HEARTH PRODUCTS. 

5 Section 321 of the Energy Policy and Conservation 

6 Act (42 U.S.C. 6291) is amended by inserting at the end 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘(67) VENTED HEARTH HEATER.—The term 

9 ‘vented hearth heater’ means a vented gas fireplace, 

10 vented fireplace insert, or vented stove— 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3761 IH

1 ‘‘(A) for which any AFUE representation, 

2 or representation with respect to P.4 effi3 ciencies required for products sold in Canada, is 

4 made in any manufacturer advertising or lit5 erature; 

6 ‘‘(B) that is certified to the ANSI Z21.88 

7 standard or identified in any manufacturer lit8 erature or advertising as a ‘heater-rated’ prod9 uct; or 

10 ‘‘(C) that is equipped by the manufacturer 

11 with a thermostatic control. 

12 ‘‘(68) DECORATIVE HEARTH PRODUCT.—The 

13 term ‘decorative hearth product’ means a vented gas 

14 fireplace, vented fireplace insert, vented stove, or 

15 vented gas log set that— 

16 ‘‘(A) is not certified to the ANSI Z21.88 

17 standard and, in the case of a vented gas fire18 place, vented fireplace insert, or vented stove, is 

19 certified to the ANSI Z21.50 standard; 

20 ‘‘(B) is sold without a thermostat and with 

21 a warranty provision expressly voiding all man22 ufacturer warranties in the event the product is 

23 used with a thermostat; and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3761 IH

1 ‘‘(C) contains no energy efficiency rep2 resentations other than P.4 efficiencies required 

3 for products sold in Canada. 

4 Decorative hearth products shall not be considered 

5 direct heating equipment for purposes of this part. 

6 A vented gas fireplace, vented fireplace insert, vent7 ed stove, or vented gas log set that is not a decora8 tive hearth product shall be considered direct heat9 ing equipment for purposes of this part.’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21.1
                                                                    ------------

                             BEACON PROPERTIES, L.P.

                              List of Subsidiaries




 1.   Beacon Construction Company, Inc. (DE)
 2.   Beacon Design Corporation (MA)
 3.   Beacon Design, L.P. (DE)
 4.   Beacon Property Management Corporation (DE)
 5.   Beacon Property Management, L.P. (DE)
 6.   Center Plaza Associates Limited Partnership (MA)
 7.   Crystal Holdings Limited Partnership(MA)
 8.   Rowes Wharf Holding, L.P. (DE)
 9.   Wellesley Holding, L.P. (DE)
10.   Wellesley Holding II, L.P. (DE)
11.   Wellesley Holding III, L.P. (DE)
12.   1333 H Street, L.P. (DE)
13.   Burlington Holding, L.P. (DE)
14.   BeaMetFed, Inc. (MD)
15.   BCN Center Plaza, LLC (DE)
16.   BCN Crystal, LLC (DE)
17.   BCN Management, LLC (DE)
18.   Beacon Properties Acquisition, LLC (DE)
State of North Carolina v. Ian Scott Banks, Defendant.

No. COA16-308

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

NO ERROR.
# C_2013252EN.01002701.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — BVGD v Commission

(Joined Cases T-104/07 and T-339/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements and abuse of a dominant position - Rough diamond market - ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) system of distribution - Decision rejecting a complaint - No Community interest - Legal basis - Procedural rights of a complainant - Access to documents - Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint - Market foreclosure effects - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 252/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant (BVGD) (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented: initially by L. Levi and C. Ronzi and, in Case T-104/07, by G. Vandersanden, and subsequently by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, R. Sauer and J. Bourke, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents, and, in Case T-104/07, initially by S. Drakakakis, lawyer, and by T. Soames, Solicitor, and subsequently by T. Soames, and, in Case T-339/08, by T. Soames)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: De Beers (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); and De Beers UK Ltd, formerly The Diamond Trading Co. Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by W. Allan and S. Horwitz, Solicitors, and subsequently by W. Allan, J. Ysewyn, lawyer, and N. Gràcia Malfeito, Solicitor, and lastly by N. Gràcia Malfeito, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, J. Marchandise, lawyers, and P. Riedel, Solicitor)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Applications for the annulment of the Commission’s Decisions of 26 January 2007 (Case COMP/39.221/B-2 — BVGD/De Beers) and of 5 June 2008 (Case COMP/39.221/E-2 — De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice) rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the interveners alleging infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC in the rough diamond market through their use of distribution agreements known as ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) arrangements.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant (BVGD) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant (BVGD) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders De Beers and De Beers UK Ltd to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders De Beers and De Beers UK Ltd to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
# C_2012138EN.01001202.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-262/07) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States - 2003 Act of Accession - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar, and the financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary law - Decision 2007/361/EC)

(2012/C 138/20)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, E. Matulionytė and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by T. Nowakowski, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz and lastly by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents); and Slovak Republic (represented: initially by J. Čorba, and subsequently by B. Ricziová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Lithuania; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Lithuania;

| 3. | Orders the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3949 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 

enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2014 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

for one year the enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ENHANCED CHARITABLE DE4 DUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOOD IN5 VENTORY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (iv) of section 

7 170(e)(3)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2013’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘December 31, 2014’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3949 IH

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

2 this section shall apply to contributions made after De3 cember 31, 2013. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2008 – Gerlach & Co. v Belgische Staat**

**(Case C‐477/07)**

Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure – Community Customs Code – Concepts of ‘entry in the accounts’ and ‘communication’ of the amount of duty to the debtor – Prior entry in the accounts of the amount of the customs debt – Recovery of the customs debt

1.                     *Own resources of the European Communities – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties (Council Regulations No 2913/92,
Arts 217(1) and 221(1), and No 1552/89, Art. 6) (see paras 18, 22-23, operative part 1)*

2.                     *Own resources of the European Communities – Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties (Council Regulation No 2913/92,
Art. 221(1) and (3)) (see paras 25-30, operative part 2)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Hof van beroep te Antwerpen – Interpretation of Articles 217 and 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) (now Council Regulation 1150/2000 (EC, Euratom) of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2000/597/EC (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1)) – Concepts of ‘entry in the accounts’ and ‘communication’ of the amount of duty to the debtor – Prior entry in the accounts of the amount of the customs debt – Recovery of the debt. |

**Operative part:**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Article 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘entry in the accounts’ of the amount of the duty to be recovered referred to therein is the ‘entry in the accounts’ of that amount as defined in Article 217(1) of that regulation and that that entry in the accounts is to be distinguished from the recording of that duty in the accounts of the own resources referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 is to be interpreted as meaning that the communication of the amount of duty to be recovered must have been preceded by the entry in the accounts of that amount by the customs authorities of the Member State and that, in the absence of due notification in accordance with that provision, that amount may not be recovered by those authorities. However, those authorities remain entitled to proceed with a new notification of that amount, in accordance with the conditions laid down by that provision and the limitation rules in force at the time the customs debt arose. |
# C_2022359EN.01001302.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/13

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — J.P. v B.d.S.L.

(Case C-521/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 1999/62/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Tolls - Non-payment - Penalties - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Article 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure - Lack of sufficient information - No link between the interpretation of EU law sought and the actual facts of the main action or its purpose - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 359/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: J.P.

Defendant authority: B.d.S.L.

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Regional Administrative Court, Upper Austria, Austria), by decision of 15 October 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          38,445
<SECURITIES>                                    74,467
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                       140
<INVENTORY>                                     14,905
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,071
<PP&E>                                          24,670
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 161,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,940
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            79
<OTHER-SE>                                     146,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   161,714
<SALES>                                         84,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,594
<CGS>                                           40,271
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,002
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,688
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,959
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,729
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,709
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 54,965
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    67,403
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.40
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136776 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: 136776 

 COA: 272019 

Washtenaw CC: 05-001976-FC 

KARRIE CALVIN MUNLIN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 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 REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, for 

the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion. In addition, we note that a 

portion of the complainant’s hospital records was apparently admitted as the prosecutor’s 

Exhibit #7 and that defense counsel questioned the nurse witness about the complainant’s 

clinical depression diagnosis and history of attempted suicide. The defense made no 

offer of proof with regard to a different diagnosis. See MRE 103(a)(2). We REMAND 

this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues raised by the defendant 

but not addressed by that court during its initial review of this case. 

KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

p0917 

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 24, 2008 

 Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2005-21873; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-27]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule, confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which modifies the legal description for Class D and Class E airspace at Salina Municipal Airport, KS.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

0901 UTC, October 27, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64276; telephone: (816) 329-2524.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43742). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on October 27, 2005. No adverse comments were received, and this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on September 8, 2005.

Elizabeth S. Wallis,

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.

[FR Doc. 05-19202  Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4927-13-M
WALKER v. The N.C. STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS

95PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 15, 2016

Ryan McKaig, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Walker, Cynthia (D.D.S.).

Carolin Bakewell, Attorney at Law, Matthew W. Sawchak, Attorney at Law, Stephen D. Feldman, Attorney at Law, Troy D. Shelton, Attorney at Law, Paul M. Cox, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for The N.C. State Board of Dental Examiners.

Clinton R. Pinyan, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for N.C. Board of Pharmacy

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of September 2016 by the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of September 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-403-CR

KIRK CHARLES ARCHAMBAULT	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	On November 3, 2008, appellant Kirk Charles Archambault filed a notice of appeal from his conviction and sentence imposed on July 28, 2008.  No motion for new trial was filed; therefore appellant’s notice of appeal was due August 27, 2008.  See Tex. R. App. 26.2(a)(1).  On November 6, 2008, we sent a letter to appellant’s trial counsel stating our concern that we were without jurisdiction because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely.  On November 19, 2008, we received a response from counsel stating that he had not been appointed to represent appellant on any appeal but that he had informed appellant that he had thirty days within which to file a notice of appeal in the district court and that appellant could request that an attorney be appointed for the appeal.  

	Because appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. 25.2(b); 26.2(a).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH	

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:   January 8, 2009
STATE v. MOORE.

No. COA08-616.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 3, 2009.

Certification Date March 23, 2009.

Appeal from Lenoir (06CRS55192).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dontezo Shirarh WHITLEY.

No. COA15-1246.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error in Part; No Plain Error in Part; Vacated and Remanded in Part.