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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3944 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3944

To permit States to enforce certain State requirements for the labeling 
                        of bottled spring water.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 1996

 Mr. Taylor of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permit States to enforce certain State requirements for the labeling 
                        of bottled spring water.

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

SECTION 1. BOTTLED SPRING WATER.

    Any State may enforce a requirement of the State respecting where 
water which is bottled must be collected before it may be labeled as 
spring water if such requirement is more restrictive than the Federal 
requirement respecting where water which is bottled must be collected 
before it may be labeled as spring water. Such Federal requirement is 
in regulations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services published 
at part 165 of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
                                 <all>
```
#### Treasurer of Lucas County *v.*Golner et al.

(No. 23733

Decided November 9, 1932.)

*Mr. Carl J. Christensen,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Arnold F. Bunge, Mr. Orion W. Nelson*and *Mr. Edward H. Ray,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Garrison S Phillips, Mr. H. J. Chittenden, Messrs. Fraser, Hiett, Wall & Effler, Messrs. Holbrook, S Banker, Messrs. Marshall, Melhorn, Marlar & Martin, Mr. Gustavus Ohlinger, Messrs. Rowe, Williams S Dillon*and *Messrs. Taber, Chittenden & Darnells,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ.. concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 26, 2024

NO. 03-23-00053-CV

Michael Rooney and Yvonne Nacu, Appellants

v.

City of Austin; Kirk Watson, in his Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Austin; 

Shay Roalson, in her Official Capacity as Austin Water Director; and Denise Lucas, in her 

Official Capacity as City of Austin Development Department Services Director, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on December 19, 2022. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s final judgment. Appellants shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 815

To provide that the Bureau of Labor Statistics may not change, during

the 104th Congress, the method of calculating the consumer price index

if it would result in higher taxes unless the change has been approved

by law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1995

Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Ms.

DELAURO, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mr. BRYANT of Texas, Mr. KLINK, Mr.

HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. FROST, Mr. WARD, Ms. LOWEY, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means and, in addition, to the Committee on Rules, for a

period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide that the Bureau of Labor Statistics may not

change, during the 104th Congress, the method of calculating the consumer price index if it would result in

higher taxes unless the change has been approved by

law.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 815 IH

1 SECTION 1. CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.

2 During the 104th Congress, the Secretary of Labor,

3 acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, may not

4 change the method of calculating the consumer price index

5 for purposes of section 1(f) of the Internal Revenue Code

6 of 1986 from the method in effect on January 1, 1995,

7 to a method which will result in higher taxes for taxpayers

8 under such section 1(f) unless the change has been ap9 proved by law. Any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or

10 conference report to give such approval shall be subject

11 to clause 3(c) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of

12 Representatives.

Æ
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.16.3

                                 SIXTH AMENDMENT

                                     TO THE

                                 TRANSTAR, INC.

                            SALARIED RETIREMENT PLAN
               (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1989)

     Effective January 1, 1999, the following revision is adopted by the 
Transtar, Inc. Salaried Retirement Plan.

     APPENDIX A, Subsection (a) shall be amended as follows:

     (a)    Normal wages and salaries for services performed, including
            incentive, shift differential, out-of-line differential, and Sunday,
            holiday and overtime premium payments applicable to such services,
            but excluding any cost-of-living payment and the amount resulting
            from a Cost-of-Living Adjustment included in the base hourly or
            salary rates on or after May 1, 1974 other than the first
            thirty-nine cents ($.39) per hour for hourly paid employees and the
            first sixty-eight dollars ($68) per month for salaried employees.
            Effective January 1, 1997, Participants whose rolled into base
            Cost-of-Living Adjustment excluded from Pensionable Earnings prior
            to January 1, 1997 exceeds six hundred dollars ($600.00) per month
            shall have such exclusion reduced prospectively to six hundred
            dollars ($600.00) per month. Effective January 1, 1998, Participants
            whose rolled into base Cost-of-Living Adjustment excluded from
            Pensionable Earnings prior to January 1, 1998 exceeds four hundred
            fifty dollars ($450.00) per month shall have such exclusion reduced
            prospectively to four hundred fifty dollars ($450.00) per month.
            EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1999, PARTICIPANTS WHOSE ROLLED INTO BASE
            COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT EXCLUDED FROM PENSIONABLE EARNINGS PRIOR
            TO JANUARY 1, 1999 EXCEEDS THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($300.00) PER MONTH
            SHALL HAVE SUCH EXCLUSION REDUCED PROSPECTIVELY TO THREE HUNDRED
            DOLLARS ($300.00) PER MONTH. The preceding shall be modified for
            Participants covered by a collective bargaining agreement that
            provides for a deviation in the method of determining normal wages
            and salaries. Effective August 11, 1986, the amount of any temporary
            reduction in any Participant's salary will be included in
            Pensionable Earnings for pension purposes; provided, however, that
            the temporary reduction included in Pensionable Earnings shall be
            reduced by any subsequent salary increase.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Transtar, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be
executed by its duly authorized officers this 11th day of January , 1999.

ATTEST:                                    TRANSTAR, INC.

By /s/ R. N. Gentile                       By /s/ J. W. Schulte
-----------------------------                ----------------------------
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

   
    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation 
of our report dated March 4, 1999 on the financial statements of the Company, 
included in this Form 10-K/A, and to the incorporation of our report into the 
Company's previously filed Registration Statement File Nos. 333-37961, 
333-45535, 333-15583, 333-17855 and 333-45523, as amended.
    

                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



   
Boston, Massachusetts
April 14, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 533 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 533

  To amend section 117 of title 17, United States Code, to permit the 
 lawful possessor of a copy of a computer program to authorize another 
              copy to be made under certain circumstances.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 1995

 Mr. Knollenberg introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend section 117 of title 17, United States Code, to permit the 
 lawful possessor of a copy of a computer program to authorize another 
              copy to be made under certain circumstances.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 117 of 
title 17, United States Code, is amended in the matter preceding 
paragraph (1) by striking ``the owner'' and inserting ``the rightful 
possessor''.
                                 <all>
```
#### SUNSET REALTY & PLANTING CO., Inc., v. BARRIOS.

No. 17295.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 27, 1939.

*152L. Julian Samuel, of Gretna, for appellant.

Leo W. McCune, of Gretna, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes before us on motion to dismiss the suspensive and the devolutive appeal taken by defendant. The suit is for the ejectment of a tenant. The judgment appealed from ordered the tenant to vacate the premises.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is based on the fact that defendant did not file any special defense, and Section 2157 of the Revised Statutes, Section 6599 of Dart’s General Statutes, is relied upon as' authority for the proposition that no appeal “shall suspend execution” of such a judgment “unless the defendant has filed a special defense, supported by his oath, that all the facts contained in his answer are true, and entitle him to retain the possession of the premises, and unless further, he give bond with good and sufficient security for all such damages as the appellee may sustain.”

A further ground urged for the dismissal of the appeal is the fact that the appeal was not requested within twenty-four hours of the time at which the judgment was rendered and, as authority for the view that such an appeal must be taken within such time, Section 2155 of the Revised Statutes, Section 6597 of Dart’s General Statutes, is relied upon.

It appears that the judgment was rendered on July 29, 1939, and that motion for appeal was not made until August 4, 1939, and it further appears that no special defense, as contemplated by R.S. 2157, was made. For both- of these reasons, therefore, it is apparent that the suspensive appeal must be dismissed.

But counsel for appellant calls attention to the fact that a devolutive as well as a suspensive appeal was requested and granted and suggests that, even if the sus-pensive appeal must be dismissed, the right of appellant to a devolutive appeal should be recognized.

In Lewis v. Provenzano, 5 La.App. 101, we considered a situation identical with that which is now before us and held that, even though a suspensive appeal,, under such circumstances, must be dismissed, the devolutive appeal may be proceeded with. We see no necessity to further consider that question.

It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss, insofar as the suspensive appeal is concerned, be and it is sustained, and that, insofar as the devolutive appeal is concerned, it be and it is overruled.

Motion sustained as to suspensive appeal; motion denied as to devolutive appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
PARADIGM MEDICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                1,002,000
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           936,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            375,000
<INVENTORY>                                           4,153,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      5,807,000
<PP&E>                                                  342,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                          138,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        6,622,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   417,000
<BONDS>                                                  25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                  9,000
<OTHER-SE>                                            6,171,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          6,622,000
<SALES>                                               1,701,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      1,731,000
<CGS>                                                 1,031,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         5,334,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          4,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       15,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (3,622,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (3,622,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (3,622,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.54)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>                     9
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-1997               
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                   1,259
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                   1,721
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>              2,752  
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   7,421      
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     7,308     
<LOANS>                                 77,655       
<ALLOWANCE>                                461    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          95,097       
<DEPOSITS>                              61,557     
<SHORT-TERM>                             9,287      
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                        584      
<LONG-TERM>                             12,810   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                 1,033     
<OTHER-SE>                               9,826     
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          95,097      
<INTEREST-LOAN>                          6,702
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          790   
<INTEREST-OTHER>                             0 
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         7,492     
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       2,884     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       4,072     
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                    3,420     
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               81   
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           0 
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                          2,643      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          1,227      
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 710    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0  
<CHANGES>                                    0  
<NET-INCOME>                               710    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              .84    
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .84    
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            3.51     
<LOANS-NON>                              1,062      
<LOANS-PAST>                                 9  
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             0 
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              0 
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           433   
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               75   
<RECOVERIES>                                22   
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          461    
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         0  
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0  
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      0  
        


</TABLE>
|                                       |         |                       |
|--------------------------------------------|--------------|----------------------------|
|                                       |         | Exhibit 21.1               |
|                                       |         |                       |
| **Subsidiaries**                           |
|                                       |         |                       |
| **Name of Subsidiary**                     |    | **State of Incorporation** |
|                                       |         |
|                                       |         |                       |
| D&D Oil Co., Inc.                      |    | Georgia                    |
| Shop-A-Snak Food Mart, Inc. |    | Delaware                   |
| Angler’s Mini-Mart, Inc.              |         | South Carolina             |
| Coastal Petroleum Company, Inc.            |         | South Carolina             |
(No. 23850.

#### In re W. A. Doss, Attorney, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 11, 1937.*

Herrick, J., took no part.

Henry C. Warner, *amicus curice.*

Doyle, Sampson & Giffin, Redmon, Redmon & Bodman, and W. C. Noel, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Orr

delivered the opinion of the court:

Proceedings taken under rule 59 of this court have culminated in the filing of a report and recommendation of the board of governors of the Illinois State Bar Association that the name of W. A. Doss, of Monticello, be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State. Upon presentation of the record here, respondent filed a brief of 427 pages, together with an abstract of record containing 1076 pages, even though the complete report of testimony and other proceedings in the cause contained only 938 pages. The abstract is practically a verbatim copy of the *525record, and the entire evidence is printed at length by question and answer, with prolix and tedious examination and cross-examination of the witnesses, involving the same labor as reading the record. In addition to these flagrant violations of rules 38 and 39 of this court, respondent also filed a reply brief consisting of 196 pages, or more than double the length of the 80 page brief filed by the bar association. The briefs filed by respondent are palpable violations of our rules, and impose an unnecessary burden which we are unwilling to assume. Our rules provide that an abstract shall be condensed in such manner as to present clearly and concisely the substance of the evidence in narrative form. They also provide that the printed briefs shall contain “a short and clear statement of the case.” In the past we have not hesitated to strike briefs and abstracts from the files when of unreasonable length or otherwise not in conformity with our rules. *Kelly*v. *Fahrney,*239 Ill. 317; *Schwitters*v. *Springer,*233 id. 432; *Chadwick*v. *People,*206 id. 122.

Upon our own motion the abstract of record and the original and reply briefs of respondent are stricken from the files. The cause is continued and respondent is given leave to file an abstract of reasonable length and a brief, the latter not exceeding 125 pages, by next July 10, relator is given until July 31 to file its brief (unless it elects to stand by the brief now on file) and respondent may file a reply brief of not exceeding 25 pages by August 9. If respondent does not file his briefs and abstract of record in compliance with the rules and this order, the recommendations of relator will be concurred in, and an order entered for respondent’s disbarment. The matter of printing costs unnecessarily imposed upon relator by respondent’s failure to comply with the rules will abide our order when the cause is considered upon its merits.

*Respondent’s briefs and abstract stricken.*

Mr. Justice Herrick took no part in this decision.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19242]



[[Page 49217]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES-956-1910-BK, Group 40, Illinois]


Eastern States: Filing of Plat of Survey

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of filing of plat of survey; Illinois.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, 
Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in 
the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston 
Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The survey was requested by the Army Corps 
of Engineers.
    The land we surveyed is:

Fourth Principal Meridian, Illinois

T. 6 S., R. 7 W.

    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of the 
fractional township boundary, the subdivisional lines and the 
resurvey of the lock and dam no. 24 acquisition boundary in Sections 
1, 2 and 12, Township 6 South, Range 7 West, of the Fourth Principle 
Meridian, in the State of Illinois, and was accepted August 12, 
2008.

    We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It 
will be available to the public as a matter of information. If BLM 
receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plat, prior to 
the date of official filing, we will stay the filing pending our 
consideration of the protest. We will not officially file the plat 
until the day after we accepted or dismissed all protests and they have 
become final, including decisions on appeals. Copies of the plat will 
be made available upon request and prepayment of the reproduction fees.

    Dated: August 14, 2008.
Ronald J. Eberle,
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. E8-19242 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P