alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §9803. Admiralty claims by United States

(a) Under the direction of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force may settle, or compromise, and receive payment of a claim by the United States for damage to property under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Air Force or property for which the Department has assumed an obligation to respond for damage, if—

(1) the claim is—

(A) of a kind that is within the admiralty jurisdiction of a district court of the United States; or

(B) for damage caused by a vessel or floating object; and

(2) the amount to be received by the United States is not more than $500,000.

(b) In exchange for payment of an amount found to be due the United States under subsection (a), the Secretary of the Air Force may execute a release of the claim on behalf of the United States. Amounts received under this section shall be covered into the Treasury.

(c) In any case where the amount to be received by the United States is not more than $100,000, the Secretary of the Air Force may delegate his authority under subsections (a) and (b) to any person in the Department of the Air Force designated by him.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 592; Pub. L. 89–67, July 7, 1965, 79 Stat. 212; Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title XVI, §1633, Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1608.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 9803(a)   9803(b) | 10:1862 (1st sentence; 2d sentence, less last 32 words; and provisos of last sentence).10:1862 (3d sentence; and last sentence, less provisos). | Oct. 20, 1951, ch. 524, §§2 (less last 32 words of 2d sentence), 6 (less applicability to §1), 65 Stat. 572, 573. |
| 9803(c) | 10:1866 (less applicability to 10:1861). | |

9803(b)

10:1862 (3d sentence; and last sentence, less provisos).

In subsection (a), the words "consider, ascertain, adjust, determine" are omitted as covered by the word "settle", as defined in section 9801 of this title. The words "receive payment" are substituted for 10:1862 (2d sentence, less last 32 words). The words "of a kind that is within the admiralty jurisdiction" are substituted for the words "cognizable in admiralty". Clause (2) is substituted for 10:1862 (last proviso of last sentence). 10:1862 (1st proviso of last sentence) is omitted as unnecessary, since other applicable claims laws are restated in this title. The words "by contract or otherwise" are omitted as surplusage.

In subsection (b), the words "of the United States as miscellaneous receipts" and "to deliver" are omitted as surplusage.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1989—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–189 substituted "$100,000" for "$10,000".

1965—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 89–67 substituted "$10,000" for "$1,000".
### [§2431. Renumbered §4205]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-1245

JORGE EDUARDO VAZQUEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARYLAND STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT; MARYLAND

PORT ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-1356

JORGE EDUARDO VAZQUEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARYLAND STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT; MARYLAND

PORT ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-93-479-

MJG)

Submitted: November 15, 1995 Decided: January 11, 1996
2
3

Before WILKINSON and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

No. 95-1245 dismissed and No. 95-1356 affirmed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Jorge Eduardo Vazquez, Appellant Pro Se. Betty Stemley Sconion,

Assistant Attorney General, Pikesville, Maryland; Donald Arnold

Krach, MARYLAND PORT ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; John

Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988).

2 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

3 Robinson v. Parke-Davis and Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir.

1982).

4

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from two separate district court orders

granting summary judgment to the Defendants in a Title VII discrimination case. The first order appealed, No. 95-1245, was the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Maryland Port

Authority; the claims against the Maryland State Police were still

pending when Appellant appealed this order. We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,1 and certain interlocutory and collateral orders.2 The order here appealed

is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.3

The next order appealed, No. 95-1356, was the district court's

order granting summary judgment to the Maryland State Police.

Because this notice of appeal was filed after the district court's

final order, it is sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction over

the Appellant's claims against both Appellees. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Vazquez v. Maryland State Police Dep't, No. CA-93-479-MJG

(D. Md. Jan. 10 & Feb. 3, 1995). We dispense with oral argument
5

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

No. 95-1245 - DISMISSED

No. 95-1356 - AFFIRMED
#### § 39.903 Use of funds.

Funds allocated under this provision for maintenance and minor repair shall be used for no other purpose.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 484 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                           May 3, 2000.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2957) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize 
funding to carry out certain water quality restoration projects for Lake 
Pontchartrain Basin, Louisiana, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During 
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) 
reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed 
question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, 
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series 
of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill 
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
or to the committee amendment in the nature a substitute. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 523 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 236
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 523

                          [Report No. 106-670]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (S. 761) to regulate interstate commerce by electronic means by 
   permitting and encouraging the continued expansion of electronic 
    commerce through the operation of free market forces, and other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2000

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (S. 761) to regulate interstate commerce by electronic means by 
   permitting and encouraging the continued expansion of electronic 
    commerce through the operation of free market forces, and other 
                               purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 761) 
to regulate interstate commerce by electronic means by permitting and 
encouraging the continued expansion of electronic commerce through the 
operation of free market forces, and other purposes. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are 
waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
                                                 House Calendar No. 236

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 523

                          [Report No. 106-670]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (S. 761) to regulate interstate commerce by electronic means by 
   permitting and encouraging the continued expansion of electronic 
    commerce through the operation of free market forces, and other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 12, 2000

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### Sophie Duden, Appellant, v. The Lawrence Park Realty Company, Respondent.

;—Judgment'affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-93,337-01
EX P ARTE MARQUISHA ANITA WILLIAMS, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1419632-A IN THE 248TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N A p p l i c a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d of ag g ravated robbery and sentenced to twenty y ears’ i m p r i s o n m e n t
. She filed this a

pplicatio n f

or a w rit of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. S e e T E X . C O D E C R

I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant c ontends that s h e w a s d e n i ed her rig ht to an appeal because counsel failed to timely file a notice o f a p peal. B ased on the record, the trial court has found that counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. Relief is g ranted. Ex parte Axel , 757 S.W .2d 369 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1988); J ones v. State , 98 S.W .3d 700 (Tex
. Crim. App. 2003). Applicant may file an out-of-time appeal of her conviction in cause number 141963201010 from the 2 4 8 th District Court of Harris County
. W ithin ten day s2

from the date of this Court’s mandate, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indig ent. I f Applicant is indig ent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial c ourt shall appoint counsel to represent her on direct appeal. Should Applicant decide to appeal, she must file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within thirty day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to t h e T e xa s D e p a

r t m e n t o f C riminal J u stice–Correctional I nstitutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles.
Delivered: March 30, 2022 Do not publish
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4333 — NIBC/NPM/DELI UNIVERSAL)

(2006/C 227/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 August 2006, 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:

----
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 227

Expressing the sense of the Congress in opposition to the Government of

Pakistan’s support for armed incursion into Jammu and Kashmir, India.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 29, 1999

Mr. GILMAN (for himself, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Mr.

PALLONE, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey, Mr. RUSH, Mr.

MEEKS of New York, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Ms. EDDIE

BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas) submitted the following resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress in opposition to the

Government of Pakistan’s support for armed incursion

into Jammu and Kashmir, India.

Whereas the United States has a vital interest in ensuring

stability in South Asia, reducing tensions between India

and Pakistan, and preventing the spread of terrorism;

Whereas Pakistani-backed armed forces and, reportedly Pakistani regulars, have crossed from Pakistan into Jammu

and Kashmir, India, and occupied Indian military positions that were temporarily abandoned for the winter season;
2

•HRES 227 IH

Whereas this incursion has the financial and military support

of Pakistan;

Whereas Pakistan’s strategy is to support the armed incursion into Kashmir and renegotiate the Line of Control;

Whereas the Indian armed forces have been forced into action

to defend the territory on the Indian side of the Line of

Control and push the terrorists and Pakistani military

forces out;

Whereas Pakistani armed forces, reportedly, are involved in

these incursions;

Whereas the actions by Pakistan are contrary to the Lahore

Declaration, an agreement between India and Pakistan to

promote regional stability, peace, and security in South

Asia;

Whereas the forces include well-trained and heavily armed

Afghans and Pakistanis associated with Osama bin

Laden, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and the Government

of Pakistan; and

Whereas the Group of Eight (comprised of the United States,

France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and Russia) on June 20, 1999, called for an immediate end to the hostilities, restoration of the Line of

Control, full respect in the future for the Line of Control,

and resumption of the dialogue between India and Pakistan in the spirit of the Lahore Declaration: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of

2 Representatives—

3 (1) that it should be the policy of the United

4 States to oppose the Government of Pakistan’s sup-
3

•HRES 227 IH

1 port for armed incursion into Jammu and Kashmir,

2 India;

3 (2) that it should be the policy of the United

4 States to support the immediate withdrawal of in5 truding forces supported by Pakistan from the In6 dian side of the Line of Control, to urge the reestab7 lishment and future respect for the Line of Control,

8 and to encourage all sides to end the fighting and

9 exercise restraint;

10 (3) that it should be the policy of the United

11 States to encourage both India and Pakistan to ad12 here to the principles of the Lahore Declaration.

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Part 224

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

#### § 224.61 What will the Tribe provide to the Secretary after receipt of the Secretary's report on the application consultation meeting?

If the Tribe wishes to proceed with the application, the Tribe must submit a final proposed TERA to the Secretary within 45 days following the date of the Tribe's receipt of the Secretary's report on the application consultation meeting.
# C_2006294EN.01003805.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-151/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 294/80)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 06.05.2006.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     I, Elie Housman, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of InkSure Technologies Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: August 3, 2006


/s/ Elie Housman
----------------
Elie Housman, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 34.6






| |  | 
| |  | 







Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm

To the Board of Directors National Tax Search, LLC

We have examined National Tax Search,
LLC (the “Company”) compliance with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria,
set forth in Item 1 122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the National Tax Search TaxQ system
(the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Company has determined that only certain servicing
criteria, 1122(d)(I)(ii), 1122(d)I(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)2(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 11122(d)(4)(xii),
are applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Company has determined
that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item I 22(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed
by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

Management is responsible for the Company’s
compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the
Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactions and compliance activities
related to the Platform during the examination period and determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performed
those activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing of selected transactions and compliance activities was
limited to calculations, reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures
did not include determining whether errors may have occurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions.
We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination
on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s
assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for
the Platform is fairly stated in all material respects.



Chicago, IL

January 18, 2016