alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ANFAVEA - Associação Nacional dos Fabricantes de Veículos AutomotoresAssessoria de Planejamento Econômico e EstatísticoIndústria Automobilística Brasileira - Empresas Associadas Tabela 11 - Vendas Atacado Mercado Interno por Tipo e Combustível - 2009

Janeiro FevereiroMarço Abril Maio Junho Julho Agosto Setembro Outubro TOTAL TOTAL GERAL 189,174 204,550274,026238,475261,485291,452 278,447 288,418 305,312 303,145 2,634,484 1. AUTOMÓVEIS Total 145,786 160,272 216,327 190,041 209,074 230,612 224,607 229,192 242,433 239,593 2,087,937 GASOLINA 8,263 6,849 8,270 6,749 8,720 10,756 8,839 9,397 13,326 8,343 89,512 FLEX FUEL 137,523 153,423208,057 183,292 200,354 219,856215,768 219,795 229,107 231,250 1,998,425 2. COMERCIAIS LEVES Total 35,022 35,340 46,382 38,379 41,725 48,496 43,216 47,072 49,672 48,942 434,246 GASOLINA 7,473 5,749 10,779 7,602 7,444 8,123 6,758 7,625 10,375 7,350 79,278 FLEX FUEL 20,450 21,372 24,219 20,925 23,784 27,321 24,831 27,281 24,564 29,537 244,284 DIESEL 7,099 8,219 11,384 9,852 10,497 13,052 11,627 12,166 14,733 12,055 110,684 3. CAMINHÕES Total 6,669 7,137 9,389 8,171 8,531 10,094 8,684 9,740 11,044 12,381 91,840 DIESEL 6,669 7,137 9,389 8,171 8,531 10,094 8,684 9,740 11,044 12,381 91,840 4. ÔNIBUS Total 1,697 1,801 1,928 1,884 2,155 2,250 1,940 2,414 2,163 2,229 20,461 DIESEL 1,697 1,801 1,928 1,884 2,155 2,250 1,940 2,414 2,163 2,229 20,461

Janeiro FevereiroMarço Abril Maio Junho Julho Agosto Setembro Outubro TOTAL GASOLINA 15,736 12,598 19,049 14,351 16,164 18,879 15,597 17,022 23,701 15,693 168,790 0.064069 FLEX FUEL157,973 174,795 232,276204,217224,138247,177240,599247,076 253,671 260,787 2,242,709 0.85129 DIESEL 15,465 17,157 22,701 19,907 21,183 25,396 22,251 24,320 27,940 26,665 222,985 TOTAL GERAL

189,174 204,550 274,026238,475261,485291,452 278,447288,418 305,312 303,145 2,634,484

1ANFAVEA - Associação Nacional dos Fabricantes de Veículos AutomotoresAssessoria de Planejamento Econômico e EstatísticoIndústria Automobilística Brasileira - Empresas Associadas
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as added by

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Pulaski Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gary W. Douglass, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added
by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                              |  | 
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: May 12, 2008 |  | /s/ Gary W. Douglass                        
|                   |  | Name: Gary W. Douglass                      
|                   |  | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 224

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 224.204 What criteria will the Secretary use to determine whether to approve an application for certification of a TEDO?

The Secretary will approve the application for certification upon determining that the application contains the documentation required in § 224.201.
NUMBER 13-21-00236-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

OSVALDO BENAVIDES AND

ROSAURA DALEL SALDANA, Appellants,

v.

LOS CAMPEONES, INC., Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 197th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

 

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva

Order Per Curiam

Appellants Osvaldo Benavides and Rosaura Dalel Saldana seek to appeal a 

summary judgment order issued on March 4, 2021, in favor of appellee Los Campeones, 

Inc. Appellants submitted an untimely notice of appeal on August 2, 2021, and 
2

subsequently filed an “Opposed First Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal.” 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1.

Before the Texas Supreme Court is a petition for review on a similar issue in a

case arising from this Court. See Rodriguez v. Marez, No. 13-20-00323-CV, 2021 WL 

377253 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 4, 2021, pet. filed) (mem. op.). At 

issue in Rodriguez, is whether this Court committed error in dismissing the case for want 

of jurisdiction after declining to extend the deadline for petitioner’s otherwise untimely 

notice of appeal. See id.

Having reexamined and reconsidered the documents on file, this Court, on its own 

motion, issues the following ruling. Appellants’ opposed first motion to extend time to file 

notice of appeal is carried with the case, and this appeal is ABATED until such time as

the Texas Supreme Court issues its opinion or denies or refuses petition in the direct

appeal of the aforementioned cause. After which, we direct appellants to promptly file a

motion to reinstate the appeal, which shall reference and include a copy of the opinion or 

applicable order issued by the Texas Supreme Court.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

2nd day of September, 2021.
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of 1st Net  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2003,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
James H. Watson, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.



/s/ James H. Watson, Jr.
-----------------------------------------
James H. Watson, Jr.
Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Registrant
June 11, 2003
### [§2398. Renumbered §2922c]
[No. 7780.]

#### DOWNER V. THE PEOPLE EX REL. MAXWELL.

*Error to Prowers District Court.*Hon. Henry Hunter, Judge. .

An actual controversy is necessary to appellate jurisdiction. The sub*498jeet matter of the controversy in a' writ of error having ceased to exist, the writ was dismissed.

Mr. I. B. Melville, Mr. C. C. Goodale, and Mr. Alfred Todd, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Granby Hillyer, for defendants in error.
§ 700.45 Business. The term business means any lawful activity, except a nonprofit organization or a farm operation, that is— ( a ) Conducted primarily for the purchase, sale, lease and or rental of personal and/or real property, and/or for the manufacture, processing, and/or marketing of products, commodities, and/or any other personal property; or
( b ) Conducted primarily for the sale of services to the public; or
( c ) Solely for the purpose of subpart D of this part, conducted primarily for outdoor advertising display purposes, when the display(s) must be moved as a result of the Act.
#### § 1000.353 What are “trust functions” for the purposes of the trust evaluation process?

Trust functions are those programs necessary to the management of assets held in trust by the United States for an Indian Tribe or individual Indian.
# C_2006281EN.01001202.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München, Germany) — Hausgemeinschaft Jörg und Stefanie Wollny v Finanzamt Landshut

(Case C-72/05) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 11A(1)(c) - Use of property forming part of the assets of a business for private purposes by a taxable person - Treatment of that use as a supply of services for consideration - Determination of the taxable amount - Definition of full cost to the taxable person of providing those services)

(2006/C 281/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München, Germany

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hausgemeinschaft Jörg und Stefanie Wollny

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Landshut

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Article 11(A)(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxable amount of supply of service consisting of use of part of a building forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of a business for the private use of the taxable person — Definition of ‘full cost’ to the taxable person

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(A)(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the taxable amount for VAT in respect of the private use of part of a building treated by a taxable person as forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of his business from being fixed at a portion of the acquisition or construction costs of the building, established in accordance with the length of the period for adjustment of deductions concerning VAT provided for in Article 20 of that directive.

That taxable amount must include the costs of acquiring the land on which the building is constructed when that acquisition has been subject to VAT and the taxable person has deducted that tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

1

---
| 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of and for the period covered by theReport. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      August 7, 2009 | /s/ Gary W. Douglass                                               |   |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      | Name:      Gary W. Douglass                                        |   |
|                      | Title:   President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Roberta Gard, Individually and d/b/a 

Roberta L. Gard and Associates, and 

Angela Nugent, Individually, Appellants

No. 06-20-00100-CV v.

Douglas Ray Stracener Estate and Mary 

Ann Stracener, Appellees

Appeal from the 115th District Court of 

Upshur County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 55-20). 

Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief 

Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellants pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 30, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
§ 115.88 Data review for corrective action. ( a ) The agency shall review data collected and aggregated pursuant to § 115.87 of this part in order to assess and improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, practices, and training, including by: ( 1 ) Identifying problem areas;
( 2 ) Taking corrective action on an ongoing basis; and
( 3 ) Preparing an annual report of its findings and corrective actions for each immigration detention facility, as well as the agency as a whole.
( b ) Such report shall include a comparison of the current year's data and corrective actions with those from prior years and shall provide an assessment of the agency's progress in preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse.
( c ) The agency's report shall be approved by the agency head and made readily available to the public through its Web site.
( d ) The agency may redact specific material from the reports, when appropriate for safety or security, but must indicate the nature of the material redacted.
From: Laney, Michael N.

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:40 AM

To: 'Garnett, Nancy'

Cc: 'Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov'

Subject:  THC conversion

Attachments: Conversion of TXI CEMS data.xls

Nancy,

  

Here are the daily averages of the THC data you submitted showing the conversion to dry THC at  

7%O2.

  

Michael Laney

Environmental Engineering

Environmental Health & Safety Division

RTI International

TEL:  919‐316‐3413

FAX:  919‐316‐3420

EMAIL:  mnl@rti.org
THC CEMS Data 6/1/2007 6/2/2007 6/3/2007 6/4/2007 6/5/2007 6/6/2007 6/7/2007 6/8/2007 6/9/2007 6/10/2007 6/11/2007 6/12/2007 6/13/2007 6/14/2007 6/15/2007 6/16/2007 6/17/2007 6/18/2007 6/19/2007 6/20/2007 6/21/2007 6/22/2007 6/23/2007 6/24/2007 6/25/2007 6/26/2007 6/27/2007 6/28/2007 6/29/2007 6/30/2007 7/1/2007 7/2/2007 7/3/2007 7/4/2007 7/5/2007 Mean SDEV

TXI MidlothianKiln 5 THC wet ppm 1.6 1.2 1.1 3.1 1.8 1.8 3.6 4.7 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.2 3.2 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.8 1.4 2.3 1.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.7 5.2 4.5 2.5 2.4 2.3

TXI MidlothianKiln 5 Dry O2 % 12.9 15.2 15.9 12.4 12.6 12.6 12.3 12.2 12.8 12.9 12.8 12.9 12.9 12.4 12.2 13.1 13.1 12.8 12.4 17.0 12.3 13.3 12.4 12.4 13.1 7.1 13.4 11.5 6.6 14.2 12.4 12.8 13.1 12.3 12.5

TXI MidlothianKiln 5 Wet O2 % 10.3 13.1 13.8 9.5 9.8 9.8 9.6 9.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 9.5 9.2 9.8 10.1 10.2 9.7 14.8 9.4 10.6 9.7 9.8 10.5 5.6 10.9 9.3 5.2 12.0 9.6 10.1 10.4 9.5 9.8

TXI MidlothianKiln 5 CF moisture 1.25 1.16 1.15 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.29 1.29 1.28 1.29 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.33 1.30 1.26 1.28 1.15 1.31 1.26 1.28 1.27 1.24 1.27 1.23 1.24 1.27 1.19 1.29 1.27 1.26 1.30 1.27

TXI MidlothianKiln 5 CF 7% O2 1.74 2.44 2.77 1.63 1.68 1.68 1.62 1.61 1.71 1.74 1.72 1.74 1.74 1.64 1.60 1.78 1.79 1.72 1.64 3.54 1.61 1.83 1.64 1.63 1.77 1.01 1.86 1.47 0.98 2.07 1.64 1.72 1.79 1.62 1.65

TXI MidlothianKiln 5 THC dry at 7% O2ppm 3.6 3.4 3.4 6.7 4.0 4.0 7.5 9.7 2.6 2.4 2.6 3.4 2.7 2.8 2.5 7.6 1.8 1.1 1.4 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.9 4.8 4.1 1.1 2.3 2.2 1.1 4.2 10.9 9.9 5.5 5.0 4.7 3.96 2.54
# C_2006294EN.01004201.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/42

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Dresdner Bank and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-44/02 OP, T-54/02 OP, T-56/02 OP, T-60/02 OP and T-61(02 OP) (1)

1

(Competition - Article 81 EC - Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services - Germany - Evidence of the infringement - Application to set aside judgments delivered by default)

(2006/C 294/88)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Dresdner Bank AG (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers); Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, formerly Vereins- und Westbank AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by:initially J. Schulte, M. Ewen and A. Neus, and subsequently W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and C. Feddersen, lawyers); Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG (Munich) (represented by: initially W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and B. Bergmann, and subsequently W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and C. Feddersen, lawyers); DVB Bank AG, formerly Deutsche Verkehrsbank AG (Frankfurt-am-Main) (represented by: M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, lawyers); and Commerzbank AG (Frankfurt-am-Main) (represented by: H. Satzky and B. Maassen, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Christoforou, A. Nijenhuis and M Schneider, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application by the Commission to set aside the judgments of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Cases T-44/02 Dresdner Bank v Commission, not published in the ECR, T-54/02 Vereins- und Westbank v Commission, not published in the ECR, T-56/02 Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank v Commission [2004] ECR II-3495, T-60/02 Deutsche Verkehrsbank v Commission, not published in the ECR, and T-61/02 Commerzbank v Commission, not published in the ECR, delivered in default

Dresdner Bank

Commission

Commission

Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank

Commission

Deutsche Verkehrsbank

Commission

Commerzbank

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application to set aside the judgments by default; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application to set aside the judgments by default;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.

1

---
### Request for Information Oc tofilms, LLC (FAA-2015-3833) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Perritt: This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 3833). This information is necessary for the Fede ral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your p etition. Sent : Monday , December 21, 2015 9:14 AM To: hperritt@gmail.com

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM) wh ich is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your inte ntion by the requested response date listed below. Please submit the additional informati on (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, plea se also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comm ent tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we mu st receive the information de scribed above by January 4, 2016. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feelfree to contact me at (202) 267-2999. FAA Office of Rulemaking
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-27 

April 16, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4043(b)(5) Reportable Events. Failure to Meet Minimum Funding Standards 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1975, in which you questioned whether the underfunding of a pension

plan prior to the effective date of the minimum funding standards of § 302 of the Employee Retirement Income Security

Act of 1974 (the "Act") constitutes a reportable event under § 4043(b) (5) of the Act. Specifically, you advised us that

the plan maintained by your client does not become subject to the minimum funding standards until the first plan year

beginning after December 31, 1975, and your client is considering presently making contributions smaller than those

necessary to meet the now minimum funding standards. Such level of contributions would be, however, legal under the

law presently in effect. 

It is the determination of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that your client's underfunding of his pension

plan prior to the effective date of § 302 of the Act does not constitute a reportable event under § 4043(b) (5). This

conclusion is based on the express language of the latter provision, which states, in pertinent part, that a reportatle event

occurs "when the plan fails to meet [*2] the minimum funding standards under . . . Section 302 of this Act." Since a

plan cannot fail to meet the minimum funding standards of section 302 until these standards are in effect, it follows that

no reportable event can occur until that time. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1094 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1094

     To require a school to forward certain information regarding 
                         transferring students.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 1999

  Mr. Durbin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require a school to forward certain information regarding 
                         transferring students.

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

SECTION 1. INFORMATION REGARDING TRANSFERRING STUDENTS.

    Subpart 4 of part C of the General Education Provisions Act (20 
U.S.C. 1232f et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 447. INFORMATION REGARDING TRANSFERRING STUDENTS.

    ``(a) In General.--Each public or private elementary school or 
secondary school that receives Federal funds, not later than 10 days 
after the school receives notice of a student's intent to transfer to 
another school, shall provide to the school to which the student is 
transferring a statement indicating whether the student is in good 
standing.
    ``(b) Definition of In Good Standing.--In this section the term `in 
good standing', when used with respect to a student, means that the 
student is eligible to attend class at the school from which the 
student is transferring and is not subject to a period of suspension or 
an expulsion from the school.
    ``(c) Special Rules.--If a student has been suspended or expelled 
for knowingly possessing a weapon in a school building or on school 
grounds, for knowingly possessing, selling, or delivering an illegal 
drug in a school building or on school grounds, or for battering a 
staff member of the school, and the period of the suspension or 
expulsion has not expired, then--
            ``(1) the statement described in subsection (a) shall 
        include the date and duration of the suspension or expulsion; 
        and
            ``(2) the student shall not be allowed to attend class in 
        an elementary school or secondary school that receives Federal 
        funds until the student serves the entire period of the 
        suspension or expulsion.
    ``(d) Form.--The Secretary shall develop a one page standard form 
for schools to use in providing the statement described in subsection 
(a).''.
                                 <all>
```