alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016468EN.01028101.xml

| 15.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 468/281 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 468/281

---

P7_TA(2013)0560

Appointment of a member of the Court of Auditors (Alex Brenninkmeijer — NL)

European Parliament decision of 11 December 2013 on the nomination of Alex Brenninkmeijer as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0312/2013 — 2013/0810(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2016/C 468/61)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0312/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0312/2013),

| — | having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0433/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0433/2013),

| A. | whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| B. | whereas at its meeting of 7 November 2013 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas at its meeting of 7 November 2013 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;

| 1. | Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Alex Brenninkmeijer as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Alex Brenninkmeijer as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

---
§ 725.412 Operator's response. ( a ) ( 1 ) Within 30 days after the district director issues a schedule pursuant to § 725.410 of this part containing a designation of the responsible operator liable for the payment of benefits, that operator shall file a response with regard to its liability. The response shall specifically indicate whether the operator agrees or disagrees with the district director's designation.
( 2 ) If the responsible operator designated by the district director does not file a timely response, it shall be deemed to have accepted the district director's designation with respect to its liability, and to have waived its right to contest its liability in any further proceeding conducted with respect to the claim.
( b ) The responsible operator designated by the district director may also file a statement accepting claimant's entitlement to benefits. If that operator fails to file a timely response to the district director's designation, the district director shall, upon receipt of such a statement, issue a proposed decision and order in accordance with § 725.418 of this part. If the operator fails to file a statement accepting the claimant's entitlement to benefits within 30 days after the district director issues a schedule pursuant to § 725.410 of this part, the operator shall be deemed to have contested the claimant's entitlement.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 130.75

 130.74

 130.84

 130.83

 130.82

 130.95

 130.15

 130.99

 130.93

 130.88

 130.91

 130.75

 130.74

 130.87

 130.89

 130.86

 130.96

 130.90

 131.03

 131.04

 130.93

 130.76

 130.88

 131.02

 131.02

 131.00

 130.90

 130.97

 130.93

 130.97

 662

 660

 671

 670

 669

 684

 596

 689

 682

 676

 679

 662

 660

 675

 677

 674

 685

 678

 694

 695

 682

 663

 676

 692

 692

 690

 678

 686

 682

 686

STORAGE

-9

-2

+11

-1

-1

+15

-88

+93

-7

-6

+3

-17

-2

+15

+2

-3

+11

-7

+16

+1

-13

-19

+13

+16

+0

-2

-12

+8

-4

+4

CHANGE

550

556

579

589

608

658

624

716

662

651

632

641

627

653

658

631

645

690

712

732

753

723

694

677

692

657

636

658

645

627

INFLOW

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

 43

PUTAH

 511

 513

 529

 546

 565

 605

 623

 624

 621

 609

 585

 606

 584

 601

 613

 589

 595

 649

 660

 686

 716

 689

 643

 625

 648

 614

 598

 610

 603

 581

PUTAH

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 1

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

C.F.S.

 .31

 .30

 .30

 .33

 .37

 .44

 .44

 .43

 .51

 .54

 .45

 .38

 .34

 .29

 .26

 .33

 .34

 .43

 .38

 .41

 .33

 .26

 .22

 .22

 .30

 .30

 .30

 .34

 .33

 .38

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-SOLANO PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2002 RUN DATE: 07/12/2002

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +15 19,576 18,241 1,290 38 10.56 .00

ACRE-FEET +15 38,829 36,181 2,559 75

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 2,559

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 36,181

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2001 23.66

 671

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, Appellant, against William W. Mills et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, et al., Respondents. [2054 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan.]

—• Order unanimously modified by fixing the values for the years 1944 — 45 and 1945-46 as follows: land, §550,000; building, $1,200,000; total, $1,750,000; and as so modified affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
# ANTONELLI**·--LAW·~.-~~** '' Drone/VAS Practice Group ..._ ',;,. ·,; ...

U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590**<·~~',~.c.:**

Re: Amendment to Frontier Geospatial, LLC Regulatory DocketNo. FAA-2015-7057-0001 Dear Sir or Madam: I -, I _:; 35 E Wacker Drive Suite 1875 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel. 312201.8310 Jeffrey@Antonelli-Law.com March 31,2016

We are writing regarding the address ofour client, Frontier Geospatial, LLC. The new full address ofour client is now: 841 E Olmstead Ave Evansville, IN 47711 We request that you update this Petition for Exemption, under Docket No. FAA-2015- 7057-0001, to reflect the new location. Ifwe can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us at 312- 201-8310 or via email at Jeffrev@Antonelli-Law.com.



### 1
§ 2806.58 Rent for energy development testing grants. ( a ) *Grants for energy site-specific testing.* You must pay $100 per year for each meteorological tower or instrumentation facility location. BLM offices with approved small site rental schedules may use those fee structures if the fees in those schedules charge more than $100 per meteorological tower per year. In lieu of annual payments, you may instead pay for the entire term of the grant (3 years or less).
( b ) *Grants for energy project-area testing.* You must pay $2,000 per year or $2 per acre per year for the lands authorized by the grant, whichever is greater. There is no additional rent for the installation of each meteorological tower or instrumentation facility located within the site testing and monitoring project-area.
[81 FR 92217, Dec. 19, 2016]
EXHIBIT 32 .01

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 Annual Report of
Microelectronics Technology Company (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"),

I, Brian Stewart, 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 to the best of my
knowledge:

        (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/ Brian Stewart
	    ----------
  	   Brian Stewart
      Chief Executive Officer

September 27, 2010














EXHIBIT 32 .02

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 Annual Report of
Microelectronics Technology Company., (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"),

I, Michael Lee, 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 to the best of my
knowledge:

        (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/ Michael Lee
      -----------
      Michael Lee
  Chief Financial Officer

September 27, 2010
#### Ann Adair, Executrix, etc. et al., Respondents, *v.*Robert Adair et al., Appellants.

(Submitted June 11, 1878;

decided November 12, 1878.)

*Blair & Rudd*for appellants.

*D. P. Barnard*for respondents.

*Per Curiam*

memorandum for affirmance on the facts. All concur, except Folder, J., dissenting.

Order affirmed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 655

 669

 697

 700

 626

 651

 632

 620

 596

 491

 442

 431

 397

 436

 457

 516

 571

 589

 574

 541

 486

 475

 471

 445

 408

 397

 359

 358

 343

 343

 357

 641

 649

 654

 618

 611

 624

 577

 584

 487

 426

 410

 392

 388

 389

 442

 459

 513

 568

 525

 480

 455

 445

 442

 399

 389

 358

 339

 339

 321

 332

 341

 649

 659

 667

 668

 619

 638

 600

 602

 559

 460

 427

 412

 391

 408

 448

 496

 548

 577

 548

 495

 461

 456

 456

 424

 400

 387

 349

 346

 331

 337

 350

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 16, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

UNION ISLAND ON OLD RIVER AT MIDDLE RIVER
#### § 2091.7-2 Segregative effect and opening: Taylor Grazing Act.

Lands classified under section 7 of the Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 315f), are segregated to the extent described in the classification notice. The segregative effect for Desert Land entries, Indian allotments, State selections (exclusive of Alaska) and Carey Act grants made after the effective date of these regulations remains in effect until terminated by publication in the Federal Register of an opening order specifying the date and time of opening or upon issuance of a patent or other document of conveyance,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 2,307.31

 2,307.09

 2,306.86

 2,306.57

 2,306.32

 2,306.09

 2,305.84

 2,305.65

 2,305.46

 2,305.18

 2,304.91

 2,304.65

 2,304.32

 2,304.04

 2,303.81

 2,303.51

 2,303.26

 2,302.94

 2,302.62

 2,302.32

 2,302.12

 2,301.86

 2,301.63

 2,301.36

 2,301.10

 2,300.87

 2,300.60

 2,300.30

 2,300.07

 2,299.91

 1,550.3

 1,547.6

 1,544.8

 1,541.3

 1,538.2

 1,535.4

 1,532.3

 1,530.0

 1,527.7

 1,524.3

 1,521.0

 1,517.9

 1,513.9

 1,510.5

 1,507.7

 1,504.1

 1,501.1

 1,497.2

 1,493.4

 1,489.8

 1,487.4

 1,484.3

 1,481.6

 1,478.3

 1,475.2

 1,472.5

 1,469.3

 1,465.7

 1,463.0

 1,461.1

STORAGE

-3.8

-2.7

-2.8

-3.5

-3.1

-2.8

-3.0

-2.3

-2.3

-3.4

-3.3

-3.1

-4.0

-3.4

-2.8

-3.6

-3.0

-3.9

-3.8

-3.6

-2.4

-3.1

-2.7

-3.2

-3.1

-2.7

-3.2

-3.6

-2.7

-1.9

CHANGE

-103

-71

-203

-57

22

201

55

152

49

92

3

19

-315

-147

-31

-240

127

-96

-203

54

282

-85

-27

26

117

70

-35

-134

-55

181

INFLOW

 1,711

 1,232

 1,158

 1,609

 1,471

 1,534

 1,492

 1,214

 1,154

 1,724

 1,564

 1,506

 1,607

 1,488

 1,321

 1,575

 1,567

 1,775

 1,656

 1,835

 1,430

 1,411

 1,349

 1,586

 1,624

 1,389

 1,509

 1,601

 1,250

 1,104

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 108

 61

 61

 122

 93

 86

 100

 104

 61

 86

 93

 100

 93

 75

 46

 7

 78

 71

 74

 32

 60

 70

 7

 63

 56

 59

 70

 59

 70

 31

C.F.S.

 .30

 .17

 .17

 .34

 .26

 .24

 .28

 .29

 .17

 .24

 .26

 .28

 .26

 .21

 .13

 .02

 .22

 .20

 .21

 .09

 .17

 .20

 .02

 .18

 .16

 .17

 .20

 .17

 .20

 .09

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .05

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2007 TRINITY LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: October 16, 2007

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -92.8 -352 44,446 0 0 2,096 5.90 .06

ACRE-FEET -92,800 -698 88,159 0 0 4,157

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 88,159

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 88,159

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .06

JULY 1, 2007 .58

 1,554.1

(1) (1)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 5, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00075

- CR

Aaron Isaac BENAVIDEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. NM582054

Honorable Ron Rangel , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on May 5, 2021

.

_________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of May, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF N.R.S., A 

CHILD,

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00163-CV

Appeal from the

112th District Court

of Crockett County, Texas

(TC# 21-02-08131-CV)

O R D E R

Don Payne’s Motion to Withdraw is granted. In addition to any other requirements of 

Tex.R.App.P. 6.5, Don Payne is ordered to communicate to the trial court that his Motion to 

Withdraw has been granted by the Court of Appeals and that trial court should promptly move to 

appoint new appellate counsel. The case has been submitted at the Court of Appeals and is 

subject to being decided at any time.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
EXHIBIT 12 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                          6 months ended
                                             June 30,                            Year Ended
                                         1999       1998      1998       1997       1996       1995       1994
Income (loss) before income
<S>                                     <C>         <C>       <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
  taxes                                 172,799     63,574    117,922    104,077    71,240     49,817     36,396
Dividends and other received from
  nonconsolidated affiliates             10,539      4,010      9,168      4,624    10,430      1,432          0

Total                                   183,338     67,584    127,090    108,701    81,670     51,249     36,396

            Fixed Charges
Interest expense                         78,842     53,733    135,766     75,076    30,080     20,752      7,669
Amortization of loan fees                   649        923      2,220      1,451       506      1,004         82
Interest portion of rentals               9,627      4,033     16,044      6,120       424        361        262

Total fixed charges                      89,118     58,689    154,030     82,647    31,010     22,117      8,013

Preferred stock dividends
Tax effect of preferred dividends             0          0          0          0         0          0          0
After tax preferred dividends                 0          0          0          0         0          0          0
Total fixed charges and
  preferred dividends                    89,118     58,689    154,030     82,647    31,010     22,117      8,013

Total earnings available for
 payment of fixed charges               272,456    126,273    281,120    191,348   112,680     73,366     44,409
Ratio of earnings to fixed
  Charges                                  3.06       2.15       1.83       2.32      3.63       3.32       5.54

Rental fees and charges                 120,333     50,417    200,550     76,500     5,299      4,510      3,273
Interest rate                                8%         8%         8%         8%        8%         8%         8%

</TABLE>
(No. 4702

#### Fred Berglund and Son, Inc., An Illinois Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May*8, 1956.

Petit, Olin, Overmyer and Fazio, Attorneys for Claimant.

Latham Castle, Attorney General; Bernard Genis, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Tolson, C. J.

On December 20,1955, Fred Berglund and Son, Inc., A Corporation, filed a complaint in this Court seeking *327an award of $1,800.00 for the balance due them for their services in altering the Administration Building of Northern Illinois State Teachers College, DeKalb, Illinois.

The record consists of the following:

> 1. Complaint.

> 2. Departmental Report.

> 3. Order waiving brief and argument.

> 4. Stipulations.

> 5. Transcript of proceedings.

The facts of the case are as follows: On November 25, 1952, claimant entered into a contract with the Teachers College Board for certain alterations to the Administration Building of the Northern Illinois State Teachers College, DeKalb, Illinois. The contract price was $50,848.00, and the work was completed in a satisfactory manner on September 23, 1953.

The final invoice in the amount of $1,800.00 was audited, and it was then discovered that the correct balance was $1,415.75, rather than $1,800.00.

At the hearing it appeared that respondent did not offer any objections to the claim, as amended, and the only reason that the final payment was not made was the fact that the appropriation lapsed on September 30,1953, and, hence, funds were not available to complete the payment.

The Court, therefore, finds that the work has-been accepted by respondent, and that the architect has issued his certificate of compliance.

An award is, therefore, made herewith to claimant, Fred Berglund and Son, Inc., in the amount of $1,415.75.
§ 431.107 IRB membership. ( a ) Each IRB shall have at least five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted by the institution. The IRB shall be sufficiently qualified through the experience and expertise of its members (professional competence), and the diversity of its members, including race, gender, and cultural backgrounds and sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes, to promote respect for its advice and counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects. The IRB shall be able to ascertain the acceptability of proposed research in terms of institutional commitments (including policies and resources) and regulations, applicable law, and standards of professional conduct and practice. The IRB shall therefore include persons knowledgeable in these areas. If an IRB regularly reviews research that involves a category of subjects that is vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, consideration shall be given to the inclusion of one or more individuals who are knowledgeable about and experienced in working with these categories of subjects.
( b ) Each IRB shall include at least one member whose primary concerns are in scientific areas and at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas.
( c ) Each IRB shall include at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution and who is not part of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with the institution.
( d ) No IRB may have a member participate in the IRB's initial or continuing review of any project in which the member has a conflicting interest, except to provide information requested by the IRB.
( e ) An IRB may, in its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of issues that require expertise beyond or in addition to that available on the IRB. These individuals may not vote with the IRB.