alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1398

AN ACT

To clarify certain boundaries on maps relating to the Coastal

Barrier Resources System.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1398 ES

1 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF COASTAL BARRIER RE2 SOURCES SYSTEM MAPS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The 7 maps described in sub4 section (b) are replaced by 14 maps entitled ‘‘Dare Coun5 ty, North Carolina, Coastal Barrier Resources System,

6 Cape Hatteras Unit NC–03P’’ or ‘‘Dare County, North

7 Carolina, Coastal Barrier Resources System, Cape Hat8 teras Unit NC–03P, Hatteras Island Unit L03’’ and dated

9 October 18, 1999.

10 (b) DESCRIPTION OF MAPS.—The maps described in

11 this subsection are the 7 maps that—

12 (1) relate to the portions of Cape Hatteras Unit

13 NC–03P and Hatteras Island Unit L03 that are lo14 cated in Dare County, North Carolina; and

15 (2) are included in a set of maps entitled

16 ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System’’, dated October

17 24, 1990, and referred to in section 4(a) of the

18 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)).

19 (c) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior

20 shall keep the maps referred to in subsection (a) on file

21 and available for inspection in accordance with section
3

S 1398 ES

1 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C.

2 3503(b)).

Passed the Senate November 8, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1398

AN ACT

To clarify certain boundaries on maps relating to

the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

134228 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MICHIGAN STATE EMPLOYEES Stephen J. Markman, ASSOCIATION, RICHARD REID, Justices and TED WOLFGANG, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 134228 COA: 273556 Ct of Claims: 04-000163-MM DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND ECONOMIC GROWTH, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 10, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

l1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership;
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 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:



1. 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;
2. 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
3. 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





1. The registrant's other certifying officer 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):



1. 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
2. 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:  February 23, 2007 | /s/ John P. Manning        
|------------------------ | ---------------------------
|                         |                            
|                         | John P. Manning            
|                         | Principal Executive Officer
#### § 1317.455 Textbooks and curricular material.

Nothing in these Title IX regulations shall be interpreted as requiring or prohibiting or abridging in any way the use of particular textbooks or curricular materials.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*George and Cecelia Aud, Defendants-Appellees.

(Nos. 71-125, 71-126 cons.;

Fifth District

October 27, 1971.

William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Alton A. Greer, State’s Attorney, of Shawneetown, (Thomas J. Immel, Assistant Attorney General and Dale R. Turner, Senior Law Student, of counsel,) for the People.

Charles W. Phillips, of Ridgeway, for appellees.

PER CURIAM:

The People of the State of Illinois appeal from an order of the trial court of Gallatin County, dismissing indictments for perjury against George and Cecelia Aud.

The indictments (identical except for names) charged that defendants “commited the offense of PERJURY, in that he under oath ... in a proceeding . . . charging the defendant (not the defendant in this instant case) with the offense of selling and delivering alcoholic liquors to a person under the age of 21 years, did make false statements material to the issue or point in question which he does not believe to be true. In violation of Section 32 — 2, Chapter 38, Illinois Revised Statutes, 1969.

*868The relevant statutes are sections 32 — 2 and 111 — 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, pars. 32 — 2 and 111 — 3):

> “32-2. Perjury (a) A person commits perjury when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any other matter where by law such oath or affirmation is required, he makes a false statement, material to the issue or point in question, which he does not believe to be true.”

> Ill — 3. Form of Charge.

> # # *

> (3) Setting forth the nature and elements of the offense charged;”

In *People v. Grieco,*44 Ill.2d 407, our Supreme Court said at 409— 10: “An indictment phrased in the language of the statute creating the crime is sufficiently certain where the words of the statute so particularize the offense as by them use alone to notify the accused of the precise offense charged against him. [Citations.] But where the statute does not specifically define the crime, or does so only in general terms, some act showing an alleged violation of the statute must be averred.”

 The Illinois Perjury Statute is framed in general terms and the words contained therein do not set forth all the elements necessaiy to constitute the offense intended to be punished. The indictments in the present case did not allege a single fact and there was nothing in them from which the defendants could tell definitely what acts they were charged with. The indictments are therefore void. *People v. Green,*368 Ill. 242; *People v. Brown,*336 Ill. 257; 70 C.J.S. p. 509; 41 Am. Jur., p. 25.

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2012109EN.01000302.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/3

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2011 — Deutsche Bahn AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-45/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of a Community trade mark consisting of a horizontal combination of the colours grey and red - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b))

2012/C 109/05

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Bahn AG (represented by: Schmidt-Hern, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party/parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party/parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 November 2010 in Case T-404/09 Deutsche Bahn v OHIM, by which that court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register a colour sign consisting of a combination of the colours grey and red as a Community trade mark for certain services in Class 39 — Distinctive character of a sign which is a combination of colours

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Deutsche Bahn AG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Deutsche Bahn AG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

1

---
§ 71.10 Permitted disinfectants. ( a ) Disinfectants permitted for use on cars, boats, and other vehicles, premises, and cages and other equipment are as follows: ( 1 ) “Cresylic disinfectant” in the proportion of at least 4 fluid ounces to 1 gallon of water.
( 2 ) Liquefied phenol (U.S.P. strength 87 percent phenol) in the proportion of at least 6 fluid ounces to 1 gallon of water.
( 3 ) Chlorinated lime (U.S.P. strength, 30 percent available chlorine) in the proportion of 1 pound to 3 gallons of water.
( 4 ) Sodium hydroxide (Lye) prepared in a fresh solution in the proportion of not less than 1 pound avoirdupois of sodium hydroxide of not less than 95 percent purity to 6 gallons of water, or one 131 ⁄ 2 ounce can to 5 gallons of water. Due to the extreme caustic nature of sodium hydroxide solution, precautionary measures such as the wearing of rubber gloves, boots, raincoat, and goggles should be observed. An acid solution such as vinegar shall be kept readily available in case any of the sodium hydroxide solution should come in contact with the body.
( 5 ) Disinfectants which are registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 135 *et seq.*), with tuberculocidal claims, as disinfectants for general use, may be used for the purpose of this part in accordance with directions on the labels accepted in connection with their registration. However, disinfectants which fall in this category are not permitted for use in outbreaks of foreign animal diseases unless in specific cases such use is approved in advance by the Administrator.
( b ) The use of “cresylic disinfectant” is permitted subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) The manufacturer thereof shall have obtained specific permission from APHIS for the use of his products in official disinfection. To obtain such permission manufacturers shall first submit a sample of at least 8 ounces for examination, together with a statement of the formula employed and a guaranty that the product will be maintained of a quality uniform with the sample submitted.
( 2 ) To prevent confusion, the product of each manufacturer and distributor shall bear a distinctive trade name or brand, together with the name of the manufacturer or distributor.
( 3 ) The product shall at all times conform to specifications for composition and performance issued by the Administrator.
[28 FR 5937, June 13, 1963, as amended at 32 FR 19157, Dec. 20, 1967; 37 FR 8864, May 2, 1972; 37 FR 9460, May 11, 1972; 55 FR 11156, Mar. 27, 1990; 55 FR 15320, Apr. 23, 1990; 61 FR 56883, Nov. 5, 1996]
#### §§ 250.7-250.15 [Reserved]
#### § 2.8 [Reserved]
#### § 73.7 Movement from quarantined to free area and shipment therefrom; restrictions under which permitted.

No person, firm, or corporation shall deliver for transportation, transport, drive on foot, or otherwise move interstate from the free area of any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia any cattle which have been moved from the quarantined area of the same State, Territory, or the District of Columbia into such free area: *Provided, however,* That such cattle may be delivered for transportation, transported, driven on foot, or otherwise moved interstate for the purposes for which the shipment, transportation, or other movement interstate of cattle of the quarantined area is permitted by this part, *Provided,* That in such shipment and transportation or other movement the requirements of this part governing the shipment and transportation or other movement of cattle of the quarantined area are strictly complied with: *And provided further,* That this section shall not apply to cattle of the quarantined area which, before being moved into the free area, are certified by an APHIS inspector or State inspector as free from disease and are accompanied by such certificate in their shipment by transportation or other movement interstate.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0051)

(44 U.S.C. 3506)

[28 FR 5945, June 13, 1963, as amended at 41 FR 5384, Feb. 6, 1976; 48 FR 57472, Dec. 30, 1983; 56 FR 52463, Oct. 21, 1991]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5106]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


North Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The North Central Idaho RAC will meet in Grangeville, Idaho. 
The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools 
and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in 
compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the 
meeting is to select projects for 2011 and hear presentations on 2012 
projects. The February 23-24 RAC meeting was cancelled due to inclement 
weather.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 24th and 25th 2011, at 10 a.m. 
(PST).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Nez Perce National Forest 
Supervisors Office, 104 Airport Road, Grangeville, Idaho. Written 
comments should be sent to Laura Smith at 104 Airport Road in 
Grangeville, Idaho 83530. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b474a5846425f436b4d58054d4e4f055e58"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7dbd6c4dadec3dff7d1c499d1d2d399c2c4">[email protected]</span></a> or via facsimile to Laura at 208-983-4099.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Smith, Designated Forest 
Official at 208-983-5143.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. A public 
forum will begin at 3:15 p.m. (PST) on the first meeting day. The 
following business will be conducted: Comments and questions from the 
public to the committee. Persons who wish to bring related matters to 
the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the 
Committee staff before or after the meeting.

    Dated: March 1, 2011.
Rick Brazell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2011-5106 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in this  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-73454) of Asante Technologies,  Inc. of our report
dated October 30, 1998,  except as to Note 10, which is as of December 30, 1998,
appearing  in  this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K.  We  also  consent  to  the
incorporation  by reference of our report on the Financial  Statement  Schedule,
which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
December 30, 1998
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 614 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule relating to 

removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears 

from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2019 

Mr. ENZI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final 

rule relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears from the Federal list 

of endangered and threatened wildlife. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Grizzly Bear State 

5 Management Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 614 IS

1 SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE RELATING TO GREAT2 ER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM POPULATION 

3 OF GRIZZLY BEARS. 

4 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue 

6 the final rule relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone 

7 Ecosystem population of grizzly bears from the Federal 

8 List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, published on 

9 June 30, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 30502), without regard to 

10 any other provision of statute or regulation that applies 

11 to issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this 

12 section) shall not be subject to judicial review. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
CCC Information Services Group Inc.


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-93544) of
White River Corporation of our report dated January 22, 1997 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of CCC Information Services Group Inc. (a
subsidiary of White River Corporation) and its Subsidiaries which report appears
on page F-33 of White River Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1996.



PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 25, 1997
### AD Economic Evaluation



### Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 0689 Directorate ID : 2009 - SW - 065 - AD Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation - manufactured Model S - 64F helicopters, now under the E rickson Air - Crane Incorporated Model S - 64F ty pe certificate Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 7 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions in this AD are intended to establish life limits for certain components, remove various parts from service, and require consistency in the p art numbers of certain four bladed tail rotor (T/R) assemblies to prevent fatigue cracking, failure from static overload, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $2,787 for replacing the rotary rudder spindle assembl y $43,750 for replacing the plate $5,223 for replacing the main servo bracket assembly $14,533 for replacing the primary servo link assembly $571 for replacing the T/R shoulder bolt $125,765 for replacing the T/R blade assembly Labor per Helicopter ( 2 x $ 8 5 /wo rk - hour for records review) (10 x $85/work - hour for replacing the rotary rudder spindle assembly) (40 x $85/work - hour for replacing the plate) (2 x $85/work - hour for replacing the main servo bracket assembly) ( 10 x $85/work - hour for replacing the primary servo link assembly) (10 x $85/work - hour for replacing the T/R shoulder bolt) (8 x $85/work - hour for replacing the T/R blade assembly) $ 170 $850 $ 3,400 $170 $850 $850 $680 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $199,599 (t otal cost to replace the parts that are proposed to be removed from service) Total US Fleet Cost $1,397,193 (total cost to replace the parts that are proposed to be removed from service)2



### Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Michael Kohner
§ 1318.510 Emergency actions. ( a ) The NEPA compliance staff may consolidate, modify, or omit provisions of these procedures for actions necessary in an emergency.
( b ) Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations, TVA will consult with CEQ about alternative arrangements for those actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review (see 40 CFR 1506.11).
( c ) The NEPA compliance staff, with the concurrence of TVA legal counsel, must determine whether such changes would substantially comply with the intent of these procedures.
( d ) The official responsible for NEPA compliance shall document the determination that an emergency exists and describe the responsive action(s) taken at the time the emergency exists. The form of that documentation is within the discretion of that official.
§ 1317.220 Admissions. ( a ) Admissions to educational institutions prior to June 24, 1973, are not covered by these Title IX regulations.
( b ) *Administratively separate units.* For the purposes only of this section, §§ 1317.225 and 1317.230, and §§ 1317.300 through 1317.310, each administratively separate unit shall be deemed to be an educational institution.
( c ) *Application of §§ 1317.300 through .310.* Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, §§ 1317.300 through 1317.310 apply to each recipient. A recipient to which §§ 1317.300 through 1317.310 apply shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in admission or recruitment in violation of §§ 1317.300 through 1317.310.
( d ) *Educational institutions.* Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section as to recipients that are educational institutions, §§ 1317.300 through 1317.310 apply only to institutions of vocational education, professional education, graduate higher education, and public institutions of undergraduate higher education.
( e ) *Public institutions of undergraduate higher education.* §§ 1317.300 through 1317.310 do not apply to any public institution of undergraduate higher education that traditionally and continually from its establishment has had a policy of admitting students of only one sex.