alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1306. Oaths to witnesses

The Director of the Office of Personnel Management and authorized representatives of the Director may administer oaths to witnesses in matters pending before the Office.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 402; Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, §906(a)(13), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1226.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 634. | Aug. 23, 1912, ch. 350, §1 (last par. under "Civil Service Commission"), 37 Stat. 372. |
| | [Uncodified]. | 1949 Reorg. Plan No. 5, §2(c), eff. Aug. 19, 1949, 63 Stat. 1069. |

Statutes at Large

The section is rewritten to reflect expansion of authority of the Commission to include its Chairman under section 2(c) of 1949 Reorg. Plan No. 5.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–454 substituted provisions respecting powers of the Director of the Office of Personnel Management in administering oaths in matters before the Office for provisions respecting powers of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and each Commissioner in administering oaths in matters before the Commission.

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.
Exhibit 1.2



                                    Autoriteit
                                    Financiet Markten
















Form for the disclosure of securities transactions
in the own issuing institution

<PAGE>

<TABLE>
Form for the disclosure of securities transactions in the own issuing institution



Part 1

<S>                                                               <C>
1.   Name of issuing institution:                                 New Skies Satellites N.V.

2.   Name of person obliged to notify:                            New Skies Satellites N.V.


Sort of security
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3.   Sort of security:                                            Ordinary shares

     (Share/Bond/Option/Warrant/other)

4.   To be filled out if applicable:

               Nominal value of the security:                     0.05 EUR

               Optional series (call option/put option):

               Exercise price:

               Expiration date:


Transaction in the security indicated in questions 3 and 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5.   Date of the transaction:                                     05-03-03

6a.  Number of securities acquired in the transaction:            156,890

 b.  Number of securities sold in the transaction:

7.   Price of the securities:                                     3.90EUR

8.   Open/Close (in case of options)











To the best of my knowledge and belief I certify that the information set forth
in this statement is true, complete and correct:


New Skies Satellites N.V., Mary J. Dent, General Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
Name

Rooseveltplantsoen 4                                              6 March 2003
------------------------------------------------------------      -----------------------------
Address                                                           Date

2517 KR The Hague
------------------------------------------------------------      -----------------------------
Postal code & city & country                                      Signature
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

     Pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  created  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of GPS Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

                  (i) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
         quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



Dated:  August 14, 2007                            By: /s/ ROBERT C. SILZER, SR.
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Robert C. Silzer, Sr.
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
```

EXHIBIT 99-1

SERVICER'S OFFICER CERTIFICATE

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 2004 fiscal year.

1.   I have reviewed the activities and performance of Long Beach Acceptance
     Corp. (the "Servicer") during the preceding fiscal year under the terms of
     the applicable Sale and Servicing Agreement and Insurance and Indemnity
     Agreement and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Servicer has
     fulfilled all of its duties, responsibilities or obligations under these
     Agreements throughout such year.

2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, no Special Event,
     Default of Event of Default (each as defined in the Agreements) has
     occurred.

s/ Michael J. Pankey
---------------------------------------
         Michael J. Pankey
         Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 30, 2005
```
§ 702.17 Revocation and enforcement. ( a ) Regulatory authority responsibility. The regulatory authority shall conduct an annual compliance review of the mining area, utilizing the annual report submitted pursuant to § 702.18, an on-site inspection and any other information available to the regulatory authority.
( b ) If the regulatory authority has reason to believe that a specific mining area was not exempt under the provisions of this part or counterpart provisions of the State regulatory program at the end of the previous reporting period, is not exempt, or will be unable to satisfy the exemption criteria at the end of the current reporting period, the regulatory authority shall notify the operator that the exemption may be revoked and the reason(s) therefor. The exemption will be revoked unless the operator demonstrates to the regulatory authority within 30 days that the mining area in question should continue to be exempt.
( c ) ( 1 ) If the regulatory authority finds that an operator has not demonstrated that activities conducted in the mining area qualify for the exemption, the regulatory authority shall revoke the exemption and immediately notify the operator and intervenors. If a decision is made not to revoke an exemption, the regulatory authority shall immediately notify the operator and intervenors.
( 2 ) Any adversely affected person may request administrative review of a decision whether to revoke an exemption within 30 days of the notification of such decision in accordance with procedures established under 43 CFR 4.1280 when OSM is the regulatory authority or under corresponding State procedures when a State is the regulatory authority.
( 3 ) A petition for administrative review filed under 43 CFR 4.1280 or under corresponding State procedures shall not suspend the effect of a decision whether to revoke an exemption.
( d ) *Direct enforcement.* ( 1 ) An operator mining in accordance with the terms of an approved exemption shall not be cited for violations of the regulatory program which occurred prior to the revocation of the exemption.
( 2 ) An operator who does not conduct activities in accordance with the terms of an approved exemption and knows or should know such activities are not in accordance with the approved exemption shall be subject to direct enforcement action for violations of the regulatory program which occur during the period of such activities.
( 3 ) Upon revocation of an exemption or denial of an exemption application, an operator shall stop conducting surface coal mining operations until a permit is obtained and shall comply with the reclamation standards of the applicable regulatory program with regard to conditions, areas and activities existing at the time of revocation or denial.
#### WESTCOTT, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CASUALTY CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

Action by Joseph Westcott against the New York Casualty Company.

.PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

HOOKER, J., not voting.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-5676

_____________________________

JOSEPH H. BROWNING and 

DEBORAH BROWNING,

Appellants,

v.

BI-LO HOLDINGS, INC.; BI-LO 

HOLDINGS, LLC; et al.,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Karen K. Cole, Judge.

September 25, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Carl Scott Schuler and Brian J. Lee, Jacksonville, for Appellants.

Joseph B. Stokes, III, Dana A. Jacobs, and William Tupper Stone, 

Jacksonville, for Appellees.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1029 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1029

   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to establish a 
                  Permanent Select Committee on Aging.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 2024

     Mr. Magaziner (for himself, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Moore of 
Wisconsin, Ms. Pressley, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Norton, Ms. Barragan, Ms. Lois 
  Frankel of Florida, Mr. Takano, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Amo, Ms. 
  Matsui, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Brownley, Ms. Bonamici, and Ms. 
Pingree) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to establish a 
                  Permanent Select Committee on Aging.

    Resolved, That rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``Permanent Select Committee on Aging
    ``12. There is established a Permanent Select Committee on Aging 
which shall not have legislative jurisdiction but which shall have 
jurisdiction--
            ``(1) to conduct a continuing comprehensive study and 
        review of the problems of the older American, including but not 
        limited to income maintenance, poverty, housing, health 
        (including medical research), welfare, employment, education, 
        recreation, and long-term care;
            ``(2) to study the use of all practicable means and methods 
        of encouraging the development of public and private programs 
        and policies which will assist the older American in taking a 
        full part in national life and which will encourage the 
        utilization of the knowledge, skills, special aptitudes, and 
        abilities of older Americans to contribute to a better quality 
        of life for all Americans;
            ``(3) to develop policies that would encourage the 
        coordination of both governmental and private programs designed 
        to deal with problems of aging; and
            ``(4) to review any recommendations made by the President 
        or by the White House Conference on aging relation to programs 
        or policies affecting older Americans.''.
                                 <all>
```
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Projections of the enterprises�financial performance**
 
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2014
 
SuDoc Number:FHF 1.2:ST 8/
Item Number:0595-B-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001050722
 
March 26, 2018
NO. 07-11-00400-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

MARCH 15, 2012

MERIDITH ANN KNIGHT, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BRAZOS COUNTY;

NO. 09-04792-CRM-CCL2; HONORABLE JAMES W. LOCKE, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL  and HANCOCK, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.[footnoteRef:1] [1:  John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.  ] 

**ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND**

Appellant, Meridith Ann Knight, appeals from conviction for the offense of possession of marijuana in an amount less than two ounces, and sentence of 180 days incarceration in the Brazos County Jail, and $2,000 fine.  Appellant filed notice of appeal on August 30, 2011.  By order of the Texas Supreme Court, this appeal was transferred from the Tenth District Court of Appeals to this Court on October 11, 2011.  See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005).  The Clerk’s Record was filed on October 18, 2011.  This Court entered an order of abatement and remand of this appeal for entry of the trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal on December 16, 2011.  SeeKnight v. State, No. 07-11-0400-CR, Tex.App. LEXIS 9942 (Tex.App.—Amarillo Dec. 16, 2011) (order).  The appeal was reinstated when a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certification was received by this Court on January 10, 2012.  

Following reinstatement of the appeal, by letter dated February 27, 2012, this Court notified the official court reporter that the reporter’s record in this case had been due to be filed no later than February 9, 2012, and directed the reporter to advise this Court of the status of the reporter’s record on or before March 8, 2012.  To date, we have neither received the reporter’s record nor any response to this Court’s February 27, 2012 directive.  

Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c).  Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the status of the preparation of the reporter’s record, and to enter any order necessary under the present circumstances to ensure that the reporter’s record is filed as soon as practicable.

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed.  In addition, the trial court shall (1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, (2) cause a supplemental clerks record to be developed containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law and any orders it may issue relating to this matter, and (3) cause a reporters record to be developed transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the aforementioned hearing.  The trial court shall then file the supplemental clerks record and supplemental reporters record with the clerk of this Court on or before April 13, 2012.  Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, same must be requested before April 13, 2012.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

3

Do not publish.  

2
# C_2008064EN.01003401.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2008 — Strack v Commission

(Case T-394/04) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Allocation of priority points - Refusal of promotion)

(2008/C 64/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Wasserliesch, Germany) (represented by: first J. Mosar, then F. Gengler and P. Goergen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Krämer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the promotion procedure carried out in respect of the applicant for 2003, of the allocation of points made in the context of that procedure and the subsequent decision not to promote the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of First Instance hereby:

| 1. | Annuls the decision concerning the number of priority points allocated to Guido Strack in the 2003 promotion procedure and the decision not to promote him through that procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision concerning the number of priority points allocated to Guido Strack in the 2003 promotion procedure and the decision not to promote him through that procedure.

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 30, 2013

h0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

147211

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147211

COA: 311427

Wayne CC: 92-001856-FC

CARL HUBBARD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 7, 2013 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
§ 1900.23 Payment of fees, notification of decision, and right of appeal. ( a ) *Fees in general.* Fees collected under this part do not accrue to the Central Intelligence Agency and shall be deposited immediately to the general account of the United States Treasury.
( b ) *Notification of decision.* Upon completion of all required review and the receipt of accrued fees (or promise to pay such fees), the Agency will promptly inform the requester of its determination regarding the request. With respect to any records that the Agency determines may be released, the Agency will provide copies. For any records or portions of records that the Agency determines must be denied, the Agency shall explain the reasons for the denial, identify the person(s) responsible for such decisions by name and title, and give notice of a right of administrative appeal.
( c ) *Availability of reading room.* As an alternative to receiving records by mail, a requester may arrange to inspect the records deemed releasable at a CIA “reading room” in the metropolitan Washington, DC, area. Access will be granted after applicable and accrued fees have been paid. All such requests shall be in writing and addressed pursuant to § 1900.03. The records will be available at such times as mutually agreed but not less than three (3) business days from our receipt of a request. The requester will be responsible for duplication charges for any copies of records desired. The Agency has an electronic FOIA reading room on its website, located at *www.cia.gov/readingroom ,* which contains records that the Agency has previously publicly released under FOIA as well as under other information review and release activities.
#### In the Matter of Alice Balaguer, an Incompetent Person, Now Deceased. — Edwin L. Smart, as Committee of Alice Balaguer and Attorney for Said Committee, Appellant; Dolores Balaguer et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to settle the final account of the committee of a deceased incompetent person, the committee (who also acted as his own attorney), appeals from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 1, 1962, settling the account, as: (1) limited his attorney’s fee to $250 for the legal services rendered by him in the proceeding; and (2) denied his application for an additional allowance of compensation, pursuant to section 1376 of the Civil Practice Act, “for services rendered by him [as committee] in excess of those ordinarily rendered by an executor or administrator.” Order modified on the facts by increasing to $750 the attorney’s fee to appellant for the legal services rendered by him, and by modifying accordingly the sixth decretal paragraph of the order. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, under all the circumstances here, the allowance made by the Special Term for the legal services rendered was inadequate to the extent indicated. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennau and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### WILSON, Respondent, v. WILSON et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 24, 1905.)

Ac*1151tion. by Francis S. Wilson against June G. Wilson and Felix Isman. I. L. Bamberger, for appellants. J. W. Shepard, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
§ 1660.8 Procedures—factors to consider. In making a determination pursuant to § 1660.7(a), the SSS GC and other SSS legal advisor will consider whether: ( a ) The litigation request or demand is overbroad, unduly burdensome, or otherwise inappropriate under applicable law or court rules, or this part.
( b ) The disclosure would be improper (*e.g.,* the information is irrelevant, cumulative, or disproportional to the needs of the case) under the rules of procedure governing the litigation from which the request or demand arose.
( c ) The official information or witness testimony is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law.
( d ) The disclosure would violate a statute, Executive order, regulation, or policy.
( e ) The disclosure would reveal: ( 1 ) Information properly classified pursuant to 44 U.S.C. chapters 21, 22, 31, 33, and 35; 5 U.S.C. 102, 105, 552, and 552a; Executive Order 12968, “Access to Classified Information,” August 2, 1995, as amended; Intelligence Community Directive 703, “Protection of Classified National intelligence, Including Sensitive Compartmental Information (SCI),” June 21, 2013; Executive Order 12958, “Classified National Security Information,” April 17, 1995, as amended; and Presidential Memorandum, “Implementation of the Executive Order, `Classified National Security Information,' ” December 29, 2009.
( 2 ) Controlled Unclassified Information pursuant to Executive Order 13556, “Controlled Unclassified Information,” November 4, 2010, as amended; and 32 CFR part 2002.
( 3 ) Technical data withheld pursuant to 32 CFR part 250.
( 4 ) Information protected by the Privacy Act, which may not be disclosed in the absence of written consent, a routine use, or other authority listed in 5 U.S.C. 552a(b).
( 5 ) Information otherwise exempt from unrestricted disclosure.
( f ) The disclosure would: ( 1 ) Interfere with an ongoing law enforcement proceeding.
( 2 ) Compromise a constitutional right of another.
( 3 ) Expose an intelligence source or confidential informant.
( 4 ) Divulge a trade secret or similar confidential information.
( 5 ) Be otherwise inappropriate.