alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 381.108 Official poultry inspection certificates; issuance and disposition. ( a ) Upon the request of an interested party, any veterinary inspector is authorized to issue an official poultry inspection certificate with respect to any lot of slaughtered poultry inspected by him. At any official establishment each such certificate shall be signed by the inspector who made the inspection covered by the certificate, and if more than one inspector participated in the inspection of the lot of poultry, each such inspector shall sign the certificate with respect to such lot. If the inspection of a lot covered by a certificate was made by a food inspector, such certificate shall also be signed by the inspector in charge when such inspection was made. Any inspector is authorized to issue a poultry inspection certificate with respect to any other poultry product inspected by him.
( b ) The original and one copy of each poultry inspection certificate shall be issued to the applicant who requested such certificate, and one copy shall be retained by the inspector for filing. The inspector who issues any inspection certificate is authorized to furnish an additional copy of such certificate upon the request of an interested party. The person who sold the live poultry involved to the official establishment is an interested party for purposes of this section.
[37 FR 9706, May 16, 1972, as amended at 39 FR 36000, Oct. 7, 1974]
§ 1315.600 Semi-annual compilation. ( a ) The head of each agency shall collect and compile the disclosure reports (see appendix B) and, on May 31 and November 30 of each year, submit to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives a report containing a compilation of the information contained in the disclosure reports received during the six-month period ending on March 31 or September 30, respectively, of that year.
( b ) The report, including the compilation, shall be available for public inspection 30 days after receipt of the report by the Secretary and the Clerk.
( c ) Information that involves intelligence matters shall be reported only to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with procedures agreed to by such committees. Such information shall not be available for public inspection.
( d ) Information that is classified under Executive Order 12356 or any successor order shall be reported only to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives (whichever such committees have jurisdiction of matters involving such information) and to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with procedures agreed to by such committees. Such information shall not be available for public inspection.
( e ) The first semi-annual compilation shall be submitted on May 31, 1990, and shall contain a compilation of the disclosure reports received from December 23, 1989 to March 31, 1990.
( f ) Major agencies, designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), are required to provide machine-readable compilations to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives no later than with the compilations due on May 31, 1991. OMB shall provide detailed specifications in a memorandum to these agencies.
( g ) Non-major agencies are requested to provide machine-readable compilations to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
( h ) Agencies shall keep the originals of all disclosure reports in the official files of the agency.
Exhibit 10.2


 





KUALA SELANGOR DISTRICT COUNCIL


 


“HONESTY & DILIGENT “


 


Our Ref : Bil (24) dlm.MDKS 301/18/1/2013/12 Jld 2


Date: 24 Feb, 2016


 


Mssrs : ASNATECH CONSULT


32-1 , Tanjung SD 13/1,


Bandar Sri Damansara,


52200 Kuala Lumpur,


Selangor Darul Ehsan


 


Sir,


APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
ORDER (BIL(95)DLM.MDKS 301/18/1/2013/12 FOR PROPOSED MIXED DEVELOPMENT ( RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ) VIA SURRENDERING AND RE ISSUING
OF TITLES UNDER SECTION 204D (KTN) ON PT 9135, IJOK COUNTY , KUALA SELANGOR DISTRICT, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN STATE , FOR MSSRS IMPIANA
MAKSIMA SDN. BHD.


 



 


We refer to the above matters and your letter dated 05 February
2016 which we received on 05 February 2016.


 


2. For you information the meeting of One Stop Center Committee
ref BIL 16/2015 held on 22 December 2015 had approved your application for Development Order based on your Application Plan ref.
AT/KM/KS/PGCG/LAYOUT44-PINDAANIMPIANA.


 


3. Appended herewith the approved Development Order and five (5)
copies of the approved Plan ref MDKS / JPP/ PS/ 21B / 2015 for your further actions. As such you are required to produce the followings
for further actions:


 


3.1 To present 20 copies of Pre-Computation Plan ( 1 linen
) and 2 diskettes / CD Approved Plan and Pre-Computation Plan comply to the following formats:


 


	I)		Setback – “Cassini Projection”



	II)		Scale 1: 10,000/ 5,000



	III)		in dwg format



	IV)		Contain coordinate points



 


3.2 To present acknowledgment letter that land owner/developer
will abide by all the terms and conditions of approval set by Council upon presentation of Pre-Computation Plan for the acknowledgement
of this department.


 


 




    	 	 	 



     

    


 


Continuation :- Bil (24) dlm.MDKS 301/18/1/2013/12 JLD2


 


4. Should the Developer / applicant not satisfied with the decision
or the terms, appeal can be made to SELANGOR STATE APPEAL BOARD, Urban and Rural Planning Unit according to the provision of sub-section
23 (1a) and (b) of Urban and Rural Planning Act 1976, (Act 172) within 30 days from the delivery of this approval.


 


 


Please be informed. The End.


 


Thank You.


 


“SERVING FOR THE COUNTRY”


 


By Order,


 


/s/ HAJAH NORAINI BINTI ROSLAN


HAJAH NORAINI BINTI ROSLAN


President


Kuala Selangor District Council


 


 


c.c.


1. ~13. various agencies and Department


 


14. Impiana Maxima Sdn. Bhd.
<PAGE>
          <TABLE>
          <CAPTION>
                                            EXHIBIT 11
                                   DEKALB Genetics Corporation
                          STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                            years ended August 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996
                         (Dollars in thousands except per share amounts)


         <S>                            <C>              <C>               <C>
                                             1998             1997              1996


         BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:

            Average shares                  34,577,265        34,250,522       32,515,743
         outstanding*

            Net earnings for basic
         earnings per share
             computation                $       10,328    $       28,781    $      17,025

            Basic earnings per share*         $   0.30          $   0.84         $    0.52



         DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

            Average shares                  34,577,265        34,250,522       32,515,743
         outstanding*

            Net average additional
         shares outstanding
             assuming dilutive options
         exercised
             and proceeds used to
         purchase treasury
             stock at average market         1,787,502         1,493,528        1,037,906
         price*


            Average number of common
         and common<PAGE>
             equivalent shares              36,364,767        35,744,050       33,553,649
         outstanding


            Net earnings for diluted
         earnings per share
             computation                 $      10,328    $       28,781    $      17,025


            Diluted earnings per              $   0.28          $   0.81         $   0.51
         share*




          </TABLE>

           *Earnings per share and all share amounts have been adjusted to
           reflect the two-for-one split of the Common Stock to holders of
           record July 25, 1997 and the three-for-one split of the Common
           Stock to holders of record May 10, 1996.<PAGE>
# C_2013123EN.01000501.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-424/11) (1)

1

(Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption of the management of special investment funds - Scope - Occupational retirement pension schemes)

2013/C 123/06

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd, National Association of Pension Funds Ltd, Ford Pension Fund Trustees Ltd, Ford Salaried Pension Fund Trustees Ltd, Ford Pension Scheme for Senior Staff Trustee Ltd

Appellants:

Respondent: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Request for preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(6) 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) — Interpretation of Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p.1) — Exemptions — Scope of the exemption for the management of special investment funds — Inclusion of occupational retirement pension schemes

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(6) 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 and Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an investment fund pooling the assets of a retirement pension scheme is not a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of those provisions, management of which may be exempted from value added tax in the light of the objective of those directives and the principle of fiscal neutrality, where the members of the scheme do not bear the risk arising from the management of the fund and the contributions which the employer pays into the scheme are a means by which he complies with his legal obligations towards his employees.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

1

---
# C_2011030EN.01006602.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/66

---

Action brought on 12 November 2010 — Van Soest v Commission

(Case F-117/10)

()

2011/C 30/131

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Barry Van Soest (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission's decision terminating the procedure to recruit the applicant, who was successful in a competition and was included on the reserve list, because he did not hold a secondary education diploma giving access to post-secondary education.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul decision HRB.2/TV/iu (2010) 6293; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul decision HRB.2/TV/iu (2010) 6293;

| — | annul decision HRD.2/AL/db Ares(2010) 511204 rejecting the applicant's complaint against that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision HRD.2/AL/db Ares(2010) 511204 rejecting the applicant's complaint against that decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
### Request for Information OC Films (FAA-2015-2869) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Bicer:

This letter is to inform you that th e following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-2869). This information is necessary fo r the Federal Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM) which 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 intention by the requested response date
listed below.

Please submit the additional informat ion (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, pl ease also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations .gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information de scribed above by November 30,
2015. If we do not receive the in formation, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999 .

FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:44 AM

To: info@ocfilms.com
#### § 39.230 How will the provisions of this subpart be phased in?

The calculation of the three-year rolling average of ADM for each school and for the entire Bureau-funded school system will be phased-in as shown in the following table.

| Time period | How OIEP must calculate ADM |
| --- | --- |
| (a) First school year after May 31, 2005 | Use the prior 3 years' count period to create membership for funding purposes |
| (b) Second school year after May 31, 2005 | (1) The academic program will use the previous year's ADM school year and the 2 prior years' count periods; and
(2) The residential program will use the previous year's count period and the 2 prior years' count weeks |
| (c) Each succeeding school year after May 31, 2005 | Add one year of ADM or count period and drop one year of prior count weeks until both systems are operating on a 3-year rolling average using the previous 3 years' count after period or ADM, respectively. |
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1


             SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN MOBILE SATELLITE CORPORATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                       LOCATION OF INCORPORATION
----                                       -------------------------
<S>                                        <C>
AMSC Acquisition Company, Inc.             State of Delaware

AMSC ARDIS, Inc.                           State of Delaware

AMSC ARDIS Acquisition, Inc.               State of Delaware

AMSC Subsidiary Corporation                State of Delaware and Commonwealth of Virginia

AMSC Subsidiary Corporation of Virginia    Commonwealth of Virginia

ARDIS Company                              New York General Partnership

XM Satellite Radio Inc.                    State of Delaware

XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc.           State of Delaware

XM Radio, Inc.                             State of Delaware
</TABLE>
# C_2012235EN.01000502.xml

| 4.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/5

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2012 — Atlas Transport GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Atlas Air Inc.

(Case C-406/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Admissibility before the Board of Appeal - Failure to file a statement setting out the grounds of appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 59 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 49(1) - Stay of proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 20(7)(c) - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

2012/C 235/08

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Atlas Transport GmbH (represented by: K. Schmidt-Hern and U. Hildebrandt, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Atlas Air Inc. (represented by: R. Dissman, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) in Case T-145/08 Atlas Transport GmbH v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between ATLAS Air Inc. and Atlas Transport GmbH — Interpretation of Article 59 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) and of Rule 20(7)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Regulation No 40/94 (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1) — Circumstances justifying the stay in the cancellation proceedings — Application for annulment of the mark on which the opposition is founded pending before the national court

Atlas Transport GmbH

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Atlas Transport GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Atlas Transport GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

1

---
§ 1308.22 Representation. ( a ) In any appeal to the Board, a Contractor may be represented by an attorney at law duly licensed by any state, commonwealth, territory, or the District of Columbia. A Contractor not an individual and not wishing to appear by an attorney may be represented by any member, partner, or officer duly authorized to act on Contractor's behalf, or if an individual, may appear personally.
( b ) TVA shall be represented by attorneys from its Office of General Counsel.
§ 544.1 Use of food ingredients. ( a ) No fish product may bear or contain any food ingredient that would render it adulterated or misbranded or that is not approved in part 424 of this chapter, or in this part or elsewhere in this subchapter, or by the Administrator in specific cases.
( b ) [Reserved]
[80 FR 75616, Dec. 2, 2015]
STORM PATRICK WOOD , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 14

- 95

_________ _________________/ Opinion filed August 7 , 2014. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Brantley S. Clark, Jr. , Judge

. Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee; Crystal McBee Frusciante of The Frusciante Law Firm, P.A., Jupiter , for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Charles R. McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

THOMAS, J. Appellant was convicted of Driving Under the Influence

- Manslaughter , Felony Driving While License Suspended or Revoked , and Aggravated Fleeing to Elude a Law Enforcement Officer Causing Death. Appellant appeals the lower
court's order summar ily denying his Motion for Post

- Conviction Relief and to Vacate Judgment and Sentence , filed pursuant to Florida Rule of CriminalProcedure 3.850, raising seven grounds for relief. We affirm the lower court’s summary denial of all but o ne of Appellant’s claims

. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must show that: (1) coun sel's per formance was deficient, and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). A trial court may summarily deny rel ief without granting an evidentiar y hearing if the record conclusively establishes that the defendant is not entitled to relief. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(d) (allowing trial court to summarily deny relief “[i]f the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief”). On appeal, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in summarily denying Ground One of his postconviction motion , as the record did not conclusively refute his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to reta in and present an independent accident reconstruction expert. We express no opinion as to the merits of Appellant’s claim, but find that Appellant has alleged a facially sufficient claim under Ground One . W e agree with Appellant that the record before us does not conclusively refute t his claim . Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. See Brantley v. State , 912 So. 2d 342, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (reversing summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion and remanding for an evid entiary hearing because “we are obligated to reverse ‘unless the record

2shows conclusively that the appe llant is entitled to no relief

. . . . ’ ”) (emphasis omitted). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing.
LEWIS , C.J ., and OSTERHAUS , J

. , CONCUR.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                            MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                4,042
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        15,975
<ALLOWANCES>                            643
<INVENTORY>                             263
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     20,411
<PP&E>                               12,535
<DEPRECIATION>                        7,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       78,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                11,039
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                130
<OTHER-SE>                           61,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         78,914
<SALES>                              39,756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     39,756
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        38,408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        291
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    2,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (1,474)
<INCOME-TAX>                            103
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (1,577)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      (1,619)
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         (3,196)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.65)
        

</TABLE>
#### PEDRO OGO CAMACHO, Appellant v. In the Matter of the Estate of MAGDALENA F. PANGELINAN, deceased, Appellee

Civil No. 61-A

District Court of Guam Appellate Division

July 28, 1970

Before GOODWIN, *District Judge,*and ABBATE, *Judge,*Island Court of Guam

PER CURIAM

The decision of the lower court is affirmed.

There is adequate support in the record for the Court’s conclusion that the petitioner’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

In prosecuting this stale claim, the petitioner has demonstrated the reason for the application of the statute of limitations. The record in the lower court is filled with *407contentions that are so remote as to time that it is difficult to find them credible. Affirmed.