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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 420 

To designate the new Interstate Route 70 bridge over the Mississippi River 

connecting St. Louis, Missouri and southwestern Illinois as the ‘‘Stan 

Musial Memorial Bridge’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2013 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mrs. WAGNER, and 

Mr. LIPINSKI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the new Interstate Route 70 bridge over the 

Mississippi River connecting St. Louis, Missouri and 

southwestern Illinois as the ‘‘Stan Musial Memorial 

Bridge’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STAN MUSIAL MEMORIAL BRIDGE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The new Interstate Route 70 

5 bridge over the Mississippi River that connects St. Louis, 

6 Missouri, to southwestern Illinois shall be known and des7 ignated as the ‘‘Stan Musial Memorial Bridge’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 420 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the bridge referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

4 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Stan Musial Memorial 

5 Bridge’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2011252EN.01003002.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2011 — Toshiba v Commission

(Case T-113/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market-sharing - Rights of the defence - Proof of the infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Statement of reasons - Starting amount - Reference year)

2011/C 252/71

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Toshiba Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: initially J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz and J. Borum, lawyers, and subsequently J. MacLennan and A. Schulz)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Arbault and J. Samnadda, then X. Lewis, and subsequently J. Bourke and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, and finally F. Ronkes Agerbeek and N. Khan, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION, primarily, for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) to the extent to which it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for the amendment of Articles 1 and 2 of that decision so as to cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2(h) and (i) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) in so far as it concerns Toshiba Corp; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2(h) and (i) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) in so far as it concerns Toshiba Corp;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Toshiba to bear three quarters of the costs incurred by the parties before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Toshiba to bear three quarters of the costs incurred by the parties before the General Court;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear a quarter of the costs incurred by the parties before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear a quarter of the costs incurred by the parties before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
----

Action brought on 27 May 2004 by MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-191/04)

(2004/C 201/43)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 2004 by MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by R. Kaase, lawyer.

Tesco Stores Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

(1)   Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1).

----
# C_2011340EN.01003501.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Saintraint v Commission

(Case F-103/06 REV)

(Staff case - Procedure - Application for revision - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Decision of the Tribunal - Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance - No binding effect - Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)

2011/C 340/69

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Antoine Saintraint (La Paz, Bolivia) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for revision by the applicant against the Order of the First Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010, in Case F-103/06.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The application for revision is dimissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for revision is dimissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant for revision is ordered to pay the costs of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant for revision is ordered to pay the costs of the Commission.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which has intervened in the action for revision, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which has intervened in the action for revision, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2155

MARVIN J. PERRY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

JOHN ADAMS; ROBERT FISHER; BERNIE HEFFELFINGER; MARK SHEPPARD,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-2091-S)

Submitted: April 13, 1999 Decided: April 30, 1999

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian K. McDaniel, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Steven D.

Frenkil, Suzzanne W. Decker, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Following Marvin J. Perry’s repeated failure to comply with

discovery requests, the district court dismissed with prejudice his

action in which he alleged that Household Finance Corporation

discriminated against him on the basis of his race. Perry appealed, contending that he substantially complied with the discovery requests and that the district court failed adequately to

consider lesser sanctions. Finding no abuse of discretion by the

district court, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

See Perry v. Household Fin. Corp., No. CA-97-2091-S (D. Md. July 8,

1998); see also National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club,

Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976) (providing standard of review);

Mutual Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d

88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989) (setting forth four-factor test). 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.

AFFIRMED
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q)
fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ DAVID GAODavid GaoChief Executive Officer
  42
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

October 17, 2008

Mr. Nicholas Arthur Parma

Royston Rayzor Vickery & Williams, L.L.P.

8000 I.H. 10 West, Suite 624

San Antonio, TX 78230

Mr. Anthony F. Constant

Constant Law Firm

800 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 2700S

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Honorable Alex W. Gabert

Judge, 229th District Court

P.O. Box 726

Rio Grande City, TX 78582

Mr. Giancarlo Nisimblat

Nisimblat & Basart

P.O.  Box 4154

Alice, TX 78333-4154

RE:Case Number:  08-0660

Court of Appeals Number:  04-08-00343-CV

Trial Court Number:  DC-06-74

Style:IN RE  SATTERFIELD & PONTIKES CONSTRUCTION, INC.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas granted the Relator’s Motion for Emergency Stay and issued the enclosed stay order in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 08-0660Page 2**
In the Matter of J.C.B.

No. COA15-373.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Present: All the Justices 

EARL J. CRONIN, DECEASED 

 

v. Record No. 951573 PER CURIAM 

 June 7, 1996 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

 We awarded an appeal in this case to review a judgment of 

the Court of Appeals of Virginia which held that an employee's 

workers' compensation claim is barred by the two-year statute of 

limitations contained in Code § 65.2-406(A)(5) because the 

employee became aware more than two years before his death and 

before his estate filed a claim with the Workers' Compensation 

Commission for death benefits that he suffered from an 

occupational disease. City of Alexandria v. Cronin, 20 Va. App. 

503, 458 S.E.2d 314 (1995). 

 For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of 

Appeals, we will affirm the judgment entered below. 

Affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00465-CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Dustin Doan, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. 701,396, HONORABLE NANCY WRIGHT HOHENGARTEN, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

The State’s motion to dismissits appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). The

appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed on State’s Motion

Filed: September 26, 2008

Do Not Publish
STATE of North Carolina v. John Arthur STROUD

No. 185P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Stroud, John Arthur

Ann W. Matthews, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 6th of June 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendant, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of June 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*161"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
# C_2004223EN.01002002.xml

| 7.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/20

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3506 — FOX PAINE/ADVANTA)

(2004/C 223/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 August 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3506. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3506. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex)

---
# Official Journal C 486/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 486 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5928 December 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 486

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5928 December 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2016/C 486/01 | Plenary meeting of the LVI COSAC — 13-15 November 2016, Bratislava — Contribution of the LVI COSAC | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Parliament

2016/C 486/01

Plenary meeting of the LVI COSAC — 13-15 November 2016, Bratislava — Contribution of the LVI COSAC

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EX-10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 
 February 28, 2013 
 Christopher W. Haffke, Esq. 

Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary 

American Greetings Corporation 
 One American
Road 
 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 
 Dear
Chris: 
 I am delivering this letter agreement on behalf of Morry Weiss, Jeffrey Weiss, Gary Weiss, Elie Weiss and myself (collectively, the
“Weiss Family”) in connection with the Engagement Letter, dated the date hereof (the “Engagement Letter”), by and between American Greetings Corporation (the “Company”) and PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP (“PwC”). 
 The Company authorizes the Weiss Family to receive the information and deliverables produced by PwC under the
Engagement Letter. 
 The Weiss Family will promptly reimburse the Company for (a) all fees and expenses charged by PwC to the Company in
connection with the Engagement Letter and (b) any out of pocket expenses or other liabilities incurred by the Company in connection with its obligation to indemnify PwC pursuant to the Engagement Letter. In addition, the Weiss Family agrees
that the Company has no responsibility or liability to any person or entity other than PwC with respect to the Engagement Letter or the services performed or information delivered thereunder. 
 The Weiss Family acknowledges that, by the written election of the Company, PwC may become a third party beneficiary to this letter agreement, entitled to enforce the terms hereof. The Weiss Family and
the Company acknowledge that nothing in this letter agreement or the Engagement Letter or any document executed in connection with the Engagement Letter affects the continued applicability of the letter agreement dated November 2, 2012 among
the Weiss Family, the Company and the other parties signatory to it. 
 Please confirm the foregoing understanding by signing and returning a
signed copy of this letter agreement to me. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	/s/ Zev Weiss
	Zev Weiss, on behalf of the Weiss Family









 Acknowledged: 
  

			
	American Greetings Corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/ Christopher W. Haffke
		 	Christopher W. Haffke
		 	Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
State of North Carolina v. Terry Cherrelle Gray, Jr. and Charles Hezekiah Gilchrist, Jr.

No. 78P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Gilchrist, Charles Hezekiah (Jr.).

Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, for Gray, Terry Cherrelle (Jr.).

Andrew O. Furuseth, Assistant Attorney General, David D. Lennon, Assistant Attorney General, Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*524***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of March 2016 by Defendant (Charles Hezekiah Gilchrist, Jr.) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
---

---

# Exhibit 4.16

# ENGLISH SUMMARY OF THE
LOAN AGREEMENT(ORIGINAL LANGUAGE  HEBREW)

BY AND BETWEEN

# POINTER (EDEN TELECOM
GROUP) LTD.

AND

# NEXUS TELOCATION
SYSTEMS LTD.

Dated November 16, 2004(the
Agreement)

|Description: 
                  
                  
                  
                  
Loan Amount: 
Term and Interest: | Loan Agreement  pursuant to which Nexus Telocation
Systems  Ltd.  shall loan  Pointer  (Eden  Telecom
Group)   Ltd.   ("Pointer")   NIS   3,916,536   in
connection   with   certain   infrastructure   and
equipment expenses.
NIS 3,916,536.
Interest   repayments   and   repayments   of  the
principal  shall be  repaid  on a pro  rata  basis
with  the   loans  of   Pointer   with  its  other
shareholders,  following  the  repayment of the $2
million  convertible loan made from Egged Holdings
Ltd.  to Pointer in  connection  the  purchase  by
Pointer  of  certain   activities  and  assets  of
Shagrir Towing  Services Ltd. and its  subsidiary,
Shagrir (1985) Ltd..
Interest  under  the loan  shall be  payable  at a
rate of 4% per year, commencing February 28, 2005.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 03, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 03, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20A0211. KEVIN L. RATHBUN v. KIRK PARKS.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
----

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2003 — European Training Foundation

(2005/C 78/09)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.etf.eu.int/WebSite.nsf/Pages/Annual+report?OpenDocument

Table 1

Implementation of the budget for the financial year 2003

Table 2

Revenue and expenditure account for the financial years 2003 and 2002 (2)

Table 3

Balance sheet at 31 December 2003 and 31 December 2002 (3)

----

(1)  Earmarked revenues have not been included in the budget (see paragraph 8 of the report).

NB: Any discrepancies in totals are due to the effects of rounding.

(2)  The revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet only take account of the Foundation's specific activities: they do not include programmes managed on behalf of the Commission.

(3)  The revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet only take account of the Foundation's specific activities: they don't include programmes managed on behalf of the Commission.

(4)  The Foundation paid to the owner of its building five millions euros for its renovation. This payment gives the Foundation the right to use the building for one euro per year during 30 years from 1995 on. This item has been taken into account for the first time in 2003. The figure for year 2002 has been restated accordingly.

----