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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1356 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1356

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that foods 
 containing spices, flavoring, or coloring derived from meat, poultry, 
  other animal products (including insects), or known allergens bear 
              labeling stating that fact and their names.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2001

  Mrs. Lowey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that foods 
 containing spices, flavoring, or coloring derived from meat, poultry, 
  other animal products (including insects), or known allergens bear 
              labeling stating that fact and their names.

    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 ``Food Ingredient Right to Know Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds as follows:
            (1) Millions of Americans follow certain dietary guidelines 
        for health, religious, and cultural reasons. These individuals 
        depend on ingredient labels for the information they need to 
        abide by these guidelines.
            (2) Under current regulations, food manufacturers are not 
        required to identify the products used in natural or artificial 
        flavorings, colorings, or spices, or some food additives.
            (3) These additives often contain derivatives of meat, 
        poultry, other animal products such as insects, and allergens 
        (such as peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, eggs, milk, soy, 
        and wheat).

SEC. 3. FOOD LABELING; REQUIREMENT OF STATEMENT REGARDING SPICES, 
              FLAVORING, AND COLORING DERIVED FROM MEAT, POULTRY, OR 
              KNOWN ALLERGENS.

    Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
343) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (g), by inserting ``, subject to paragraph 
        (t)'' before the period at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (i), by inserting ``, subject to paragraph 
        (t)'' before the first period; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
    ``(t) If it contains any spice, flavoring, or coloring derived from 
meat, poultry, any other animal product (including insects), or a known 
food allergen unless its labeling bears a statement with appropriate 
prominence on the information panel providing that fact and the name of 
the meat, poultry, other animal product, or known food allergen, 
respectively.''.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 26, 2010 

d0222 

Order 

 

February 26, 2010 

139311 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139311 

 COA: 290416 

Lenawee CC: 03-010213-FC; 

GREGORY SHANNON FOX, 03-010214-FC; 03-010215-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 26, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 99 (a)

ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME (LOSS)

(Unaudited)

(millions of dollars)



|                                                       |  |                                  |        |  
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | -------------------------------- | ------ | -
|                                                       |  | Twelve Months EndedJune 30, 2009 |       
|Operating revenues                                     |  | $                                | 10,540 |  
|Fuel, purchased power and delivery fees                |  |                                  | (3,659 | )
|Net gain from commodity hedging and trading activities |  |                                  | 9,357  |  
|Operating costs                                        |  |                                  | (1,538 | )
|Depreciation and amortization                          |  |                                  | (1,655 | )
|Selling, general and administrative expenses           |  |                                  | (1,009 | )
|Franchise and revenue-based taxes                      |  |                                  | (361   | )
|Impairment of goodwill                                 |  |                                  | (8,950 | )
|Other income                                           |  |                                  | 77     |  
|Other deductions                                       |  |                                  | (1,277 | )
|Interest income                                        |  |                                  | 26     |  
|Interest expense and related charges                   |  |                                  | (4,357 | )
|                                                       |  |                                  |        |  
|                                                       | 
|Loss before income taxes                               |  |                                  | (2,806 | )
|                                                       | 
|Income tax expense                                     |  |                                  | (2,277 | )
|                                                       |  |                                  |        |  
|                                                       | 
|Net loss                                               |  |                                  | (5,083 | )
|                                                       | 
|Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interests      |  |                                  | 132    |  
|                                                       |  |                                  |        |  
|                                                       | 
|Net loss attributable to EFH Corp.                     |  | $                                | (4,951 | )
|                                                       |  |                                  |        |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Petra ROMERO-CARRILLO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50178.

D.C. No. CR-01-03325-JSR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 2003.*

Decided March 12, 2003.

Before LEAVY, FERNANDEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Petra Romero-Carrillo appeals her conviction, following a guilty plea, for importa*340tion of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.

Romero-Carrillo’s contention that 21 U.S.C. § 960 is facially unconstitutional following *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that *United States v. Harris,*536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), overrules *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 562 (9th Cir.) (en banc), *cert. denied,*535 U.S. 1105, 122 S.Ct. 2314, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002), and *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 573, 154 L.Ed.2d 459 (2002), is foreclosed by *United States v. Hernandez,*322 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.2003). Romero-Carrillo’s conviction is

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




December 2005


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-103-PB

Sherry Roderick

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

August 15, 2006 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to conduct discovery and prepare a defense. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and in order to allow the

parties additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from August 15, 2006 to October 3, 2006. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00103-PB Document 12 Filed 08/11/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on September

25, 2006 at 4:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 11, 2006

cc: Harry Batchelder, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00103-PB Document 12 Filed 08/11/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7999

CHRISTOPHER S. HENRY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. AL BASKERVILLE, Warden of Powhatan Correctional Center; UNKNOWN, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00561-HEH)

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher S. Henry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher S. Henry appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). Henry also appeals the district court’s order denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Henry v. Baskerville , No. 3:08-cv00561-HEH (E.D. Va. Sept. 4, 2009 & Oct. 22, 2009). 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
#### RELIABLE LAUNDRY, Inc., Utica Mutual Insurance Company and Florida Industrial Commission, Appellants, v. Armas WARMAN, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

June 15, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

 Case No. 06-cv-354-PB

 

General Electric Company

O R D E R

General Electric Company (“GE”) has filed a “Motion for

Judgment” asking me to vacate my May 21, 2009 order in light of

the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burlington Northern &

Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1870 (2009).

I ruled against GE because the evidence at trial established

that GE arranged for the disposal of waste Pyranol. As my order

notes, GE’s objective when it made its arrangement with Mr.

Fletcher was to rid itself of hazardous waste by transferring it

to Fletcher. This qualifies as an arrangement for disposal under

Burlington because GE intended to rid itself of the waste Pyranol

by intentionally using Fletcher to dispose of it. 

No purpose would be achieved by holding oral argument. GE’s

motion for judgment (Doc. No. 131) is denied. 

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 139 Filed 10/28/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 28, 2009

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 139 Filed 10/28/09 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1518 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1518

  To require the Secretary of the Interior to include on the National 
   Register of Historic Places the Avery Point Lighthouse in Groton, 
     Connecticut, and provide $200,000 for the restoration of that 
                              lighthouse.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

 Mr. Simmons introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of the Interior to include on the National 
   Register of Historic Places the Avery Point Lighthouse in Groton, 
     Connecticut, and provide $200,000 for the restoration of that 
                              lighthouse.

    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 ``Avery Point Lighthouse Restoration 
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:
            (1) The Coast Guard built the Avery Point Lighthouse in 
        Groton, Connecticut, as a memorial to lighthouse keepers.
            (2) The Avery Point Lighthouse is the only such memorial in 
        the Nation.
            (3) Because of years of neglect, the Avery Point Lighthouse 
        has suffered substantial deterioration.
            (4) Restoration of the Avery Point Lighthouse to its 
        original state will cost $300,000.

SEC. 3. INCLUSION ON NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND 
              RESTORATION FUNDING FOR AVERY POINT LIGHTHOUSE.

    (a) Inclusion on National Register of Historic Places.--The 
Secretary of the Interior shall include on the National Register of 
Historic Places the Avery Point Lighthouse, located in Groton, 
Connecticut, on the Avery Point campus of the University of 
Connecticut.
    (b) Restoration Funding.--From amounts appropriated to carry out 
the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) for 
fiscal year 2002, the Secretary of the Interior shall provide $200,000 
for the restoration of the Avery Point Lighthouse to the University of 
Connecticut Fund, Incorporated (a nonprofit corporation incorporated 
under the laws of the State of Connecticut).
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John A. Baldi

v. Case No. 04-CV-466-PB

John T. Broderick, Jr., et al.

O R D E R

On September 21, 2005, I issued a Memorandum and Order

declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ronald and

Gail Brown’s counterclaims. As a result, I dismissed the

counterclaims without prejudice. 

John Baldi argues that this ruling is erroneous because the

Browns invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction rather than its

supplemental jurisdiction. If the Browns agree with Baldi’s

contention, they shall, on or before October 28, 2005, file a

motion to reconsider the September 21, 2005 Memorandum and Order

to the extent that it dismisses their counterclaims. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 19, 2005

Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 75 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 2
cc: John A. Baldi, pro se

Daniel J. Mullen, Esq.

Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.

Charles Russell, Esq.

John A. Curran, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 75 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21768]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Rescission of Order of 
Revocation

    Notice is hereby given that the Order revoking the following 
license is being rescinded by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant 
to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and 
the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean 
Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515.
    License Number: 020747N.
    Name: Prime Logistics Int'l, Inc.
    Address: 6900 N.W. 84th Avenue, Miami, FL 33166.
    Order Published: FR: 08/20/08 (Volume 73, No. 162, Pg. 49204).

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. E8-21768 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3013

_____________________________
D AISY R ICHARDS , as P ersonal R epresentative of the E state of James E. Hurd, Jr., D eceased
, Appellant,

v.

J AMES E. R ISH , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gulf County

. John L. Fishel
, II, Judge

.
May 31, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Appellant appeals a Final Judgment entered in Appellee’ s favor on several claims , including unjust enrichment, arising from an unenforceable oral contract for the sale of real property

. We agree with Appellant that the trial court’s determination that equity did not compel repayment of fu nds paid to Appellee is unsupported by the evidence. See Golden v. Woodward , 15 So. 3d 664, 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting that an unjust enrichment action exists to prevent “‘the wrongful retention of a benefit, or the retention of money or property of another, in violation of good conscience and fundamental principles of justic e or equity’” (citation omitted)); see also Cole Taylor Bank v. Shannon , 772 So.2 2d 546, 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (applying the competent, substantial evidence standard of review i n reviewing a trial court’s ruling in favor of a defendant in an unjust enrichment action). We, therefore, reve rse the Final Judgment on the issue of unjust enrichment and remand with directions that the trial court enter judgment in Appellant’s favor on that claim.

R EVERSED and R EMANDED with d irections

.
B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.

, and L EWIS and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

George V. Matlock, Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

James E. Rish, pro se
, Appellee.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gregory A. Gaylor

v. Civil No. 05-cv-339-PB

George W. Bush, et al

ORDER

Re: Document No. 1, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Ruling: The clerk shall set a hearing on the petition. The

respondent shall be prepared to explain what action, if any, the

state court has taken with respect to the motion to stay. It shall

also be prepared to demonstrate that petitioner will be entitled to

release and an opportunity to leave the United States before any

effort is made to impose the sentence on the tax charge.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

U.S. District Judge

Date: March 12, 2006

cc: Gregory A. Gaylor, pro se

Peter Papps, Esq.

Simon Brown, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00339-PB Document 23 Filed 03/12/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1139 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1139

      To terminate the participation of the Forest Service in the 
                Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2001

   Mrs. Bono (for herself, Mr. Stump, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Herger) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
   Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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 concered

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To terminate the participation of the Forest Service in the 
                Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.

    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 ``Forest Tax Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF RECREATIONAL FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR THE 
              FOREST SERVICE.

    (a) Termination.--On and after the effective date of this section, 
the Secretary of Agriculture may not impose or collect any fee under 
the authority of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program authorized 
by section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1996 (section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134; 16 
U.S.C. 460l-6a note). Amounts collected before that date shall continue 
to be used by the Secretary in the manner provided in that section.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 315 of the Department of 
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (section 
101(c) of Public Law 104-134; 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note), is amended--
            (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``and the Secretary of 
        Agriculture (acting through the Forest Service) shall each'' 
        and inserting ``shall'';
            (B) in subsection (b)--
                    (i) by striking ``appropriate Secretary'' and 
                inserting ``Secretary''; and
                    (ii) by striking ``four agencies'' and inserting 
                ``three agencies''; and
            (C) in subsection (e), by striking ``and the Secretary of 
        Agriculture''.
    (2) Section 334 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-291; 114 Stat. 997; 
16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note), is amended by striking the last sentence.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made by this 
section shall take effect 10 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```