alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Walter H. Smith *et*al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, *v.*National Drag Racing Enterprises, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 73-181;

Second District

November 27, 1974.

*92Jacobs, Williams & Montgomery, of Chicago (Barry L. Kroll and C. Barry Montgomery, of counsel), for appellant.

Reid, Ochsenschlager, Murphy & Hupp, of Aurora, for appellees,

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE KECHENMACHER.
### §2906. Dependent school children

(a) The Secretary may provide, out of funds appropriated to or for the use of the Coast Guard, for the primary and secondary schooling of dependents of Coast Guard personnel stationed outside the continental United States at costs for any given area not in excess of those of the Department of Defense for the same area, when it is determined by the Secretary that the schools, if any, available in the locality are unable to provide adequately for the education of those dependents.

(b) Whenever the Secretary, under such regulations as he may prescribe, determines that schools located in the same area in which a Coast Guard facility is located are not accessible by public means of transportation on a regular basis, he may provide, out of funds appropriated to or for the use of the Coast Guard, for the transportation of dependents of Coast Guard personnel between the schools serving the area and the Coast Guard facility.

(Added Pub. L. 91–278, §1(14), June 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 306, §657; amended Pub. L. 93–430, §5, Oct. 1, 1974, 88 Stat. 1182; renumbered §544 and amended Pub. L. 113–281, title II, §214(b)(1)(C), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 3033; renumbered §2906, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §117(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4230.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2906 was renumbered section 5107 of this title.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 544 of this title as this section.

2014—Pub. L. 113–281 renumbered section 657 of this title as this section and, in subsec. (a), substituted "The Secretary may" for "Except as otherwise authorized by the Act of September 30, 1950 (20 U.S.C. 236–244), the Secretary may".

1974—Pub. L. 93–430 struck out "; transportation of" after "children" in section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (b), and added subsec. (a).
IV

House Calendar No. 326

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 669

[Report No. 106–1025]

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 128) making

further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 7, 2000

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 joint resolution (H.J. Res.

128) making further continuing appropriations for the

fiscal year 2001, 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 joint resolution (H.J.

4 Res. 128) making further continuing appropriations for

5 the fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes. The joint

6 resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The

7 previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
2

HRES 669 RH

1 joint resolution to final passage without intervening mo2 tion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

3 controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member

4 of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion

5 to recommit.

House Calendar No. 326

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 669

[Report No. 106–1025]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution

(H.J. Res. 128) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and forother purposes.

DECEMBER 7, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
# C_2006295EN.01002701.xml

| 5.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/27

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4348 — PKN/Mazeikiu)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 295/06)

On 7 November 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:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4348. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4348. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
### §1445. Succession of Federal Home Loan Banks

Each Federal Home Loan Bank shall have succession until dissolved by the Director under this chapter or by further act of Congress.

(July 22, 1932, ch. 522, §25, 47 Stat. 740; Pub. L. 101–73, title VII, §701(b)(1), (3)(A), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 412; Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title II, §1204(8), July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2786.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–289 substituted "the Director" for "the Board".

1989—Pub. L. 101–73 substituted "Board" for "board".
#### STATE v. MOORE

No. 502PA89

Case below: 95 N.C.App. 718

Petition by the Attorney General for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 18 January 1990.
#### § 9002.8 New party.

*New party* means a political party which is neither a major party nor a minor party.
### §605. Repealed. Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title III, §329, 49 Stat. 717

Section, act Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §25 (par.), 38 Stat. 273, as amended by act Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 461, 39 Stat. 755, related to interlocking directors, officers, and employees. See section 19 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.

Section was comprised of the former seventh undesignated par. of section 25 of act Dec. 23, 1913, which comprises this subchapter. For classification of other pars. of section 25 of this Act, see Codification note under section 601 of this title.
# C_2010134EN.01002801.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 17 March 2010 — Prism Investments BV v J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV

(Case C-139/10)

2010/C 134/43

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Prism Investments BV

Appellant:

Respondent: J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 45 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) preclude the court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 of that regulation from refusing or revoking the declaration of enforceability on a ground, other than one of those specified in Articles 34 and 35 of that regulation, which has been advanced against enforcement of the judgment declared enforceable and which arose after that judgment had been delivered, such as the ground that there has been compliance with that judgment?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2010148EN.01005402.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/54

---

Action brought on 1 April 2010 — Bombín Bombín v Commission

(Case F-22/10)

2010/C 148/96

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luis María Bombín Bombín (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Pardo Pedernera, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Commission, in response to the applicant’s complaint, to grant financial compensation in respect of only 12 rather than 29 days of accrued leave which he had not yet taken at the time he began his leave of absence.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission, issued on 4 January 2010, to grant and pay to the applicant financial compensation for only 12 days; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission, issued on 4 January 2010, to grant and pay to the applicant financial compensation for only 12 days;

| — | grant to the applicant (for calculation purposes and in respect of the financial compensation) all the days of leave (in total 29 days) which he had accrued and had not yet taken at the time he began his leave of absence; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant to the applicant (for calculation purposes and in respect of the financial compensation) all the days of leave (in total 29 days) which he had accrued and had not yet taken at the time he began his leave of absence;

| — | as to costs, the applicant submits no claim, since he considers that the resolution of the present case by the Tribunal is important for the parties, both being in good faith, and the case does not justify claims in respect thereof. |
| --- | --- |

—

as to costs, the applicant submits no claim, since he considers that the resolution of the present case by the Tribunal is important for the parties, both being in good faith, and the case does not justify claims in respect thereof.

---
# C_2007056EN.01000302.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 — Salzgitter Mannesmann GmbH, formerly Mannesmannröhren-Werke GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-411/04 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in seamless steel tubes - Fair legal process - Anonymous evidence - Fine - Cooperation - Equal treatment)

(2007/C 56/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Salzgitter Mannesmann GmbH, formerly Mannesmannröhren-Werke GmbH (represented by: M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan and H.Gading, Agents, H-J. Freund, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Case T-44/00 Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v Commission, inasmuch as it dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case IV-1/35.860.B. — Seamless steel tubes) (OJ 1999 L 140, p. 11) — Right to a fair hearing — Misapplication of Article 81 EC — Principle of equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Salzgitter Mannesmann GmbH to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Salzgitter Mannesmann GmbH to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

1

---
### §§639, 640. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section 639, act June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title VIII, §82, 48 Stat. 273, made a supplementary grant of powers to Governor of Farm Credit Administration.

Section 640, act June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title VIII, §85, 48 Stat. 273, authorized Farm Credit Administration to have a seal. See section 2248 of this title.
#### § 17.540 Advertising.

A recipient shall not in any advertising related to employment indicate preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the particular job in question.
### §5387. Directors not liable for acquiescing in appointment of receiver

The members of the board of directors (or body performing similar functions) of a covered financial company shall not be liable to the shareholders or creditors thereof for acquiescing in or consenting in good faith to the appointment of the Corporation as receiver for the covered financial company under section 5383 of this title.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title II, §207, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1459.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 5301 of this title.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Gateway Distributors, Ltd., a
Nevada  corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March
31,  2006,  as  filed  with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Richard  A. Bailey, Chief Financial 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.


Dated:  November 1,  2006.
                                      /s/ Richard A. Bailey
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Richard A. Bailey, Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40244 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ASCENCION MACIAS-CERVANTES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CR-302-1

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1998

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Ascencion Macias-Cervantes has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Macias has not responded to this motion. Our

independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
# C_2007082EN.01000202.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-150/04) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for workers - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Freedom of establishment - Income tax - Pensions - Policy taken out with a pension institution in another Member State - Tax legislation - Limitation on the deductibility or exemption from taxable income of contributions paid into a pension scheme - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Effectiveness of supervision of taxation - Cohesion of the tax system - Symmetry of the tax system - Double taxation convention)

(2007/C 82/03)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially by S. Tams, and subsequently by R. Lyal and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Sweden, (represented by: A. Kruse, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 39, 43, 49 and 56 EC — Tax legislation limiting income tax deductions for pension insurance contributions to schemes set up with undertakings in the Member State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force a system for life assurance and pensions under which tax deductions and tax exemptions for payments are granted only for payments under contracts entered into with pension institutions established in Denmark, whereas no such tax relief is granted for payments made under contracts entered into with pension institutions established in other Member States, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force a system for life assurance and pensions under which tax deductions and tax exemptions for payments are granted only for payments under contracts entered into with pension institutions established in Denmark, whereas no such tax relief is granted for payments made under contracts entered into with pension institutions established in other Member States, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.

1

---
AAM-12-110-E 

December 12, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10400 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1356 

Mr. Pascal Lardy 

President 

Heliflite Too, Inc. 

2709 Oak Tree Drive 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 

Dear Mr. Lardy: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated December 2, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Heliflite Too, Inc. (Heliflite Too), for an exemption from part 120 Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would permit Heliflite Too, 

which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive 

employees under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Heliflite Too. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Heliflite Too, Inc., an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to 

the extent necessary to permit Heliflite Too, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Heliflite Too are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Heliflite Too part 135 operation, not under the part 91. 

This exemption terminates January 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
### §1748h–3. Payments in lieu of taxes; limitations; exemption from taxation

(a) The Secretary is authorized to make payments in lieu of taxes on any real property to which title has been or is hereafter acquired by him in fee under section 1748b of this title as effective prior to August 11, 1955, and on which taxes or payments in lieu of such taxes were payable or paid prior to acquisition by the Secretary. Such payments may be made in connection with tax years occurring prior to or subsequent to October 5, 1962. The amount of any such payments shall not exceed taxes on similar property and shall not include interest or penalties. If the Secretary has acquired or hereafter acquires title in fee to real property by foreclosure or by transfer from some other department or agency of the Government or otherwise during a tax year, he may make a payment in lieu of taxes prorated for that portion of the year remaining after his acquisition of title. This subsection shall not authorize any lien against property held by the Secretary, nor the payment of any tax, nor any payment in lieu of any tax, on any interest of the Secretary as lessee or mortgagee.

(b) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to exempt any real property which has been or is hereafter acquired and held by the Secretary under section 1748h–1 or 1748h–2 of this title from taxation by any State or political subdivision thereof, to the same extent, according to its value, as other real property is taxed.

(June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title VIII, §811, as added Pub. L. 87–756, Oct. 5, 1962, 76 Stat. 751; amended Pub. L. 90–19, §1(a)(3), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 17.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1967—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 90–19 substituted "Secretary" for "Commissioner" wherever appearing.