alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §8692. Ford-class aircraft carriers: cost limitation baselines

(a) Limitation.—The total amounts obligated or expended from funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or for any other procurement account, may not exceed the following amounts for the following aircraft carriers:

(1) $13,224,000,000 for the construction of the aircraft carrier designated CVN–78.

(2) $11,398,000,000 for the construction of the aircraft carrier designated CVN–79.

(3) $12,202,000,000 for the construction of the aircraft carrier designated CVN–80.

(4) $12,451,000,000 for the construction of the aircraft carrier designated CVN–81.

(b) Exclusion of Battle and Interim Spares From Cost Limitation.—The Secretary of the Navy shall exclude from the determination of the amounts set forth in subsection (a) the costs of the following items:

(1) CVN–78 class battle spares.

(2) Interim spares.

(3) Increases attributable to economic inflation after December 1, 2018, not otherwise included in the amounts listed in subsection (a).

(c) Written Notice and Briefing on Change in Amount.—The Secretary of the Navy may adjust an amount listed in subsection (a) not fewer than 15 days after submitting written notice and providing a briefing to the congressional defense committees, each of which shall include the amount and rationale of any change and the resulting amount after such change.

(Added Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title I, §121(a), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1233.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Another section 8692 was renumbered section 8693 of this title.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 8692, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 538, provided qualifications to receive a rating of pilot in time of peace, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 92–168, §3(1), Nov. 24, 1971, 85 Stat. 489. See section 2003 of this title.
### **CHAPTER 18—BANK SERVICE COMPANIES**

Sec.
1861.
Short title and definitions.
1862.
Amount of investment in bank service company.
1863.
Permissible bank service company activities for depository institutions.
1864.
Permissible bank service company activities for other persons.
1865.
Prior approval for investments in bank service companies.
1866.
Services to nonstockholders or nonmembers.
1867.
Regulation and examination of bank service companies.
§ 547.17 How does a TGRA apply to implement an alternate minimum standard to those required by this part? ( a ) *TGRA approval.* ( 1 ) A TGRA may approve an alternate standard from those required by this part if it has determined that the alternate standard will achieve a level of security and integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace. A gaming operation may implement an alternate standard upon TGRA approval subject to the Chair's decision pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) For each enumerated standard for which the TGRA approves an alternate standard, it must submit to the Chair within 30 days a detailed report, which must include the following: ( i ) An explanation of how the alternate standard achieves a level of security and integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace; and
( ii ) The alternate standard as approved and the record on which the approval is based.
( 3 ) In the event that the TGRA or the tribe's government chooses to submit an alternate standard request directly to the Chair for joint government to government review, the TGRA or tribal government may do so without the approval requirement set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) *Chair review.* ( 1 ) The Chair may approve or object to an alternate standard approved by a TGRA.
( 2 ) If the Chair approves the alternate standard, the Tribe may continue to use it as authorized by the TGRA.
( 3 ) If the Chair objects to the alternate standard, the operation may no longer use the alternate standard and must follow the relevant technical standard set forth in this part.
( 4 ) Any objection by the Chair must be in written form with an explanation why the alternate standard as approved by the TGRA does not provide a level of security or integrity sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the standard it is to replace.
( 5 ) If the Chair fails to approve or object in writing within 60 days after the date of receipt of a complete submission, the alternate standard is considered approved by the Chair. The Chair may, upon notification to the TGRA, extend this deadline an additional 60 days.
( c ) *Appeal of Chair decision.* A TGRA may appeal the Chair's decision pursuant to 25 CFR chapter III, subchapter H.
#### § 37.101 What definitions apply to the terms in this part?

*Act* means the No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 107-110, enacted January 8, 2002. The No Child Left Behind Act reauthorizes and amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the amended Education Amendments of 1978.

*Bureau* means the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior.

*Geographic attendance area* means a physical land area that is served by a Bureau-funded school.

*Geographic attendance boundary* means a line of demarcation that clearly delineates and describes the limits of the physical land area that is served by a Bureau-funded school.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of the Interior or a designated representative.
#### Berkey et al. *v.*Sigerfoos, Trustee.

[No. 12,034.

Filed March 17, 1925.]

From Elkhart Superior Court; *William B. Hile,*Judge.

Action between Val Chester Berkey and others and William J. Sigerfoos, Trustee. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*James L. Harman*and *Oscar Jay,*for appellants.

*Church & Chester,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed on authority of *Stutesman*v. *Siger*foos, *Trustee*(1925), *ante*600, 145 N. E. 507.
### §9629. Proceeds: disposition

The proceeds of sales of the following shall be paid into the Treasury to the credit of the appropriation out of which they were purchased, and are available for the purposes of that appropriation:

(1) Exterior articles of uniform sold under section 9621 of this title.

(2) Supplies, war material, and military publications sold to educational institutions under section 9627 of this title.

(3) Fuel, oil, other supplies, and services sold under section 9626 of this title.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 581; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title X, §1031(b), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 306.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 9629 | 10:1179 (proviso).10:1395 (last sentence).22:259 (last sentence). | Feb. 14, 1927, ch. 134 (last sentence), 44 Stat. 1096. |
| | | July 17, 1914, ch. 149 (proviso), 38 Stat. 512. |
| | | May 31, 1939, ch. 161 (last sentence), 53 Stat. 796. |

10:1395 (last sentence).

22:259 (last sentence).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Par. (3). Pub. L. 110–181 struck out "for aircraft of a foreign military or air attaché" after "services".
§ 62.5 An appeal. ( a ) An appeal must be in writing and must be filed with the Bureau official designated in the notification of an adverse enrollment action, or in the absence of a designated official, with the Bureau official who issued the notification of an adverse enrollment action; or when the notification of an adverse action is made by a tribal committee with the Superintendent.
( b ) An appeal may be on behalf of more than one person. However, the name of each appellant must be listed in the appeal.
( c ) An appeal filed by mail or filed by personal delivery must be received in the office of the designated Bureau official or of the Bureau official who issued the notification of an adverse enrollment action by close of business within 30 days of the notification of an adverse enrollment action, except when the appeal is mailed from outside the United States, in which case the appeal must be received by the close of business within 60 days of the notification of an adverse enrollment action.
( d ) The appellant or sponsor shall furnish the appellant's mailing address in the appeal. Thereafter, the appellant or sponsor shall promptly notify the Bureau official with whom the appeal was filed of any change of address, otherwise the address furnished in the appeal shall be the address of record.
( e ) An appellant or sponsor may request additional time to submit supporting evidence. A period considered reasonable for such submissions may be granted by the Bureau official with whom the appeal is filed. However, no additional time will be granted for the filing of the appeal.
( f ) In all cases where an appellant is represented by a sponsor, the sponsor shall be recognized as fully controlling the appeal on behalf of the appellant. Service of any document relating to the appeal shall be on the sponsor and shall be considered to be service on the appellant. Where an appellant is represented by more than one sponsor, service upon one of the sponsors shall be sufficient.
#### JOHNSON v. SMITH

No. 137P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 451

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 May 1990.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-43 

June 25, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(9) Plans Covered. Substantial Owner Plans 

OPINION: 

 We have reviewed your request of April 28, 1975 for a ruling that the Plan Termination Insurance Provisions of

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("the Act") do not apply to the * * * 

You indicate that there has been only one participant in the plan since its adoption and that this participant has

always been a substantial owner within the meaning of Sec. 4022(b)(6)(A)(i) of the Act. This indicates that the plan is

excluded under Section 4021(b)(9) from Plan Termination Insurance coverage. This exclusion, as you have noted,

exempts a plan "which is established and maintained exclusively for substantial owners as defined in Sec. 4002(b)(6)

of the Act." 

We hope this is of assistance. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Lixia
Tu, the Chief Financial Officer of KBS FASHION GROUP LIMITED (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



1.       The
Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.       Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned has executed this statement this 30th day of November, 2016.





| | /s/ Lixia Tu                                
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Lixia Tu                                    
| | Chief Financial Officer                     
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)





A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to KBS Fashion Group Limited and will be retained by KBS Fashion Group Limited and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The forgoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00274-CV

Billy Bob Aldridge and Allegheny Mutual Casualty Co. 

dba Alamo Bail Bonds, Surety, Appellants

v.

State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 01-091-C277, HONORABLE MICHAEL JERGINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

The trial court signed a final judgment on January 3, 2002. On February 1, appellants Billy 

Bob Aldridge and Allegheny Mutual Casualty Co. dba Alamo Bail Bonds, Surety, filed a motion for new 

trial. On April 18, they filed their notice of appeal. On May 15, this Court sent appellants a letter informing 

them that the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely, requesting a response by May 28, and notifying 

them that a failure to respond timely would result in the appeal=s dismissal. On July 3, appellee the State of 

Texas filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. To date, appellants have not responded to the Court=s letter.
We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). We 

dismiss appellee=s motion to dismiss.

 

Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 26, 2002

Do Not Publish
IV

House Calendar No. 146

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 354

[Report No. 106–439]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3194) making appropriations

for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities

chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of said District for

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 2, 1999

Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3194) making

appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in

part against revenues of said District for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3194) mak4 ing appropriations for the government of the District of

5 Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in
2

HRES 354 RH

1 part against revenues of said District for the fiscal year

2 ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. The

3 bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The pre4 vious question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

5 to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one

6 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair7 man and ranking minority member of the Committee on

8 Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.

House Calendar No. 146

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 354

[Report No. 106–439]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3194)

making appropriations for the government of theDistrict of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of saidDistrict for the fiscal year ending September 30,2000, and for other purposes.

NOVEMBER 2, 1999

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

EDWARD ADDISON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 330 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### In the Matter of James Mooney, Appellant, v Cheryl Ferone, Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 495]

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), dated November 7, 2005, as denied his petition for sole custody of the parties’ daughter and modified the parties’ visitation schedule.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*680The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, later incorporated into a judgment of divorce, which provided, inter alia, that the mother would have physical custody of the parties’ daughter and the father would have visitation on alternate weekends and on certain weekdays. At the time they entered into this agreement, the parties resided in Suffern, New York. Soon thereafter, the mother relocated to Mendham, New Jersey, some 40 miles from Suffern, purportedly for the purpose of an employment opportunity. The mother petitioned for sole custody and modification of visitation. Thereafter, the father also filed a petition seeking sole custody. Following a hearing, the Family Court refused to grant sole custody to either party, but modified visitation.

Where the parties have entered into an agreement concerning custody, it will not be set aside absent a change in circumstances and unless such change would be in the best interests of the children *(see Smoczkiewicz v Smoczkiewicz,*2 AD3d 705 [2003]). While a relocation of the custodial parent may seriously interfere with the noncustodial parent’s ability to exercise visitation *(see Granados-Corrigan v Corrigan,*252 AD2d 540 [1998]; *Matter of Rodriguez v Gasparino,*218 AD2d 739 [1995]), and may be enjoined where a noncustodial parent is highly involved in the children’s day-to-day lives *(see Rybicki v Rybicki,*176 AD2d 867 [1991]; *cf. Matter of Tokarz v Loughlin,*25 AD3d 716 [2006]; *Lavane v Lavane,*201 AD2d 623 [1994]; *Hemphill v Hemphill,*169 AD2d 29 [1991]; *Blundell v Blundell,*150 AD2d 321, 324 [1989]), here, the relocation was not a great distance, and good cause was shown therefor. Accordingly, visitation was properly modified to accommodate the custodial parent’s relocation *(see Matter of Browner v Kenward,*213 AD2d 400, 401 [1995]; *Partridge v Myerson,*162 AD2d 507 [1990]). Moreover, the modification of the father’s visitation was in the child’s best interests *(see Matter of Manos v Manos,*282 AD2d 749 [2001]). In addition, there is no evidence of attempted parental alienation that would justify a change in custody *(see Bobinski v Bobinski,*9 AD3d 441 [2004]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Adams, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 640

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 19, 2000.

Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the

legislative day of Thursday, October 19, 2000, for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules and pass, or

adopt, the following measures:

(1) the bill (H.R. 2780) to authorize the Attorney

General to provide grants for organizations to find missing adults;

(2) the resolution (H. Res. 605) expressing the

sense of the House of Representatives that communities

should implement the Amber Plan to expedite the recovery of abducted children;

(3) the bill (H.R. 4541) to reauthorize and amend

the Commodity Exchange Act to promote legal certainty,

enhance competition, and reduce systemic risk in markets for futures and over-the-counter derivatives, and for

other purposes;
2

•HRES 640 EH

(4) the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 271)

expressing the support of Congress for activities to increase public awareness of multiple sclerosis; and

(5) the bill (H.R. 2592) to amend the Consumer

Products Safety Act to provide that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products subject to such Act.

SEC. 2. House Resolutions 615 and 633 are laid on the

table.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 99.9  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  We consent to the reference to our Firm under the captions Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm and Principal Accountant Fees and Services and to the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of our reports dated March 31, 2014, with respect to the statements of financial position of the Trust as at December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the statements of comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2013 and for the period from December 19, 2012 to December 31, 2012, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Sprott Physical Platinum and Palladium Trust as at December 31, 2013.  /s/ Ernst & Young LLPToronto, Canada
Chartered AccountantsMarch 31, 2014
Licensed Public Accountants
### §2244. Security investigations

(a) Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may not be used for the conduct of an investigation by the Department of Defense, or by any other Federal department or agency, for purposes of determining whether to grant a security clearance to an individual or a facility unless the Secretary of Defense determines both of the following:

(1) That a current, complete investigation file is not available from any other department or agency of the Federal Government with respect to that individual or facility.

(2) That no other department or agency of the Federal Government is conducting an investigation with respect to that individual or facility that could be used as the basis for determining whether to grant the security clearance.

(b) For purposes of subsection (a)(1), a current investigation file is a file on an investigation that has been conducted within the past five years.

(Added Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title IX, §904(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1621; amended Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title X, §1061(a)(11), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1473.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1991—Subsec. (a)(1), (2). Pub. L. 102–190 substituted "Government" for "government".
§ 169.301 When will a right-of-way document be effective? ( a ) A right-of-way document will be effective on the date we approve the right-of-way document, even if an appeal is filed under part 2 of this chapter.
( b ) The right-of-way document may specify a date on which the grantee's obligations are triggered. Such date may be before or after the approval date under paragraph (a) of this section.
Order entered August 10, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 15 - 00954 - CV IN RE SONJA Y. WEBSTER, Relator Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR - 10 - 866 - 2 

### O RDER Before Justices Francis, Myers and Schenck Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 612 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       October 6, 2000.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4475) making 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. All points or 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
The Conference report shall be considered as read.
    Sec. 2. House Resolutions 586, 592, 595, 599, and 600 are laid on the table.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```