alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DATE 

## o

## 5

- Z 

### 'i3 ··-

**~**

## S:

The Honorable Penny S. Pritzker Secretary ofCommerce U.S. Department ofCommerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 The HonorableJohn Kerry Secretary ofState U.S. Department ofState 2201 CStreet, NW Washington, DC 20520 The HonorableAnthony Foxx Secretary ofTransportation U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 FOR DOCKETS: DOC-2015-0001, DOS-2015-0016, DOT-OST-2015-0082
Dear Madam and Sirs: The issues being raised aboutthe Gulf States airlines and their Open Skies agreements are of concern to me as Chair ofthe Arab American Caucus ofthe 1California Democratic Party, to my colleagues, and to people in the Arab American community across the state. We consider this issue to have personal impacts and to be representative ofthe misunderstanding people ofArab background still face in today's America. The three airlines in question, Emirates Airways, Etihad Airways, and Qatar Airways, are among the primary providers ofquality air service tothe Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and other countries with large Arab populations. For Arab Americans in California, the Gulf States airlines'seNice out of Los Angeles International and San Francisco International Airports is essential. They have provided more direct routes, while also driving competition that has brought savings on the economy side and offering high-end accommodations that are attractive to business and first class travelers. While being fully committed to this country, manyArab people work hard to remain in contact with their countries oforigin and participate in the lives offamily and communities "back home." In some cases, Arab Americans are also well positioned to open business relationships in places like the United Arab Emirates, which can result in economic benefits for both sides. The required travel is notalways easy, butthe Gulf States airlines are helping in this regard. As you are well aware, Arab Americans are facing numerous challenges and misperceptions, not the least ofwhich related to airtravel. Oblique public references by U.S. airlines leadership to 9/11 demonstratethat, while claiming a need for more "fairness,"they are willing to act unjustly in pursuit oftheir goals. The Gulf States airlines should notbe targeted for action because they are Arab-owned. In evaluating the arguments being pressed bythe major U.S. airlines, it is clear that self-interest is at the bottom oftheircomplaints. Such action is to be expected among competing businesses to gain every advantage possible. Inthis case, however, giving in totheir demands to renegotiate Open Skies will not only harm Arab Americans and othertravelers to and from the Middle East but extend the perception thatthere is something wrong with Arab-run airlines. A better resolution can be achieved. Thankyou forthe opportunityto submit this comment as part ofan open dialogue on the issue. We appreciate your attention to these concerns. Sincerely,

Murad Sarama, Chairman Arab American Caucus ofthe California Democratic Party 

# u
### §47a. Information concerning illegal introduction, manufacture, acquisition or export of special nuclear material or atomic weapons or conspiracies relating thereto; reward

Any person who furnishes original information to the United States—

(a) leading to the finding or other acquisition by the United States of special nuclear material or an atomic weapon which has been introduced into the United States or manufactured or acquired therein contrary to the laws of the United States, or

(b) with respect to the introduction or attempted introduction into the United States or the manufacture or acquisition or attempted manufacture or acquisition of, or a conspiracy to introduce into the United States or to manufacture or acquire, special nuclear material or an atomic weapon contrary to the laws of the United States, or

(c) with respect to the export or attempted export, or a conspiracy to export, special nuclear material or an atomic weapon from the United States contrary to the laws of the United States,

shall be rewarded by the payment of an amount not to exceed $500,000.

(July 15, 1955, ch. 372, §2, 69 Stat. 365; Pub. L. 93–377, §1(b), Aug. 17, 1974, 88 Stat. 472.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1974—Pub. L. 93–377 in par. (a) made minor changes in phraseology, in par. (b) included information relating to the actual introduction, manufacture and acquisition, or conspiring to introduce into the United States or to manufacture or acquire special nuclear material or an atomic weapon as within the information for which a reward would be given, and added par. (c).

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

#### Short Title

Act July 15, 1955, ch. 372, §1, 69 Stat. 365, as amended by Pub. L. 93–377, §1(a), Aug. 17, 1974, 88 Stat. 472, provided: "That this Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Atomic Weapons and Special Nuclear Materials Rewards Act'."
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DIANE KATHRYN PARRISH,

Appellant,

v.

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-2724

[May 17, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Jennifer Alcorta Waters, Judge; L.T. Case No. 22000903-

SC-AXMX.

Diane Kathryn Parrish, Port St. Lucie, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 

1050, (Fla. 1980).

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 125 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 125

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Transportation 
       and Infrastructure in the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2023

   Mr. Graves of Missouri (for himself and Mr. Larsen of Washington) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                        on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Transportation 
       and Infrastructure in the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

     For the expenses of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 
``Committee''), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 
shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House of 
Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, not more than 
$21,766,388 for the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

     Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $10,883,194 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2023, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2024; and
            (2) not more than $10,883,194 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2024, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2025.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

     Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
and approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House 
Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

     Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41255 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS MANUEL SUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-96-CR-126-3

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jesus Suarez appeals the denial of a two-point reduction for a minor participant under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court did not clearly err in denying this adjustment. See United States v. Flucas , 99 F.3d 177, 178 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 1097 (1997); United States v. Edwards , 65 F.3d 430, 434 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
§ 2001.42 Standards for security equipment. ( a ) *Storage.* The Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) shall, in coordination with agency heads originating classified information, establish and publish uniform standards, specifications, qualified product lists or databases, and supply schedules for security equipment designed to provide secure storage for classified information. Whenever new secure storage equipment is procured, it shall be in conformance with the standards and specifications established by the Administrator of the GSA, and shall, to the maximum extent possible, be of the type available through the Federal Supply System.
( b ) *Destruction.* Effective January 1, 2011, only equipment listed on an Evaluated Products List (EPL) issued by the National Security Agency (NSA) may be utilized to destroy classified information using any method covered by an EPL. However, equipment approved for use prior to January 1, 2011, and not found on an EPL, may be utilized for the destruction of classified information until December 31, 2016. Unless NSA determines otherwise, whenever an EPL is revised, equipment removed from an EPL may be utilized for the destruction of classified information up to six years from the date of its removal from an EPL. In all cases, if any such previously approved equipment needs to be replaced or otherwise requires a rebuild or replacement of a critical assembly, the unit must be taken out of service for the destruction in accordance with this section. The Administrator of the GSA shall, to the maximum extent possible, coordinate supply schedules and otherwise seek to make equipment on an EPL available through the Federal Supply System.
### §296. Separation of funding

#### (a) In general

There shall be established separate accounts in the Treasury of the United States for appropriated funds and other deposits available for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border Security.

#### (b) Separate budgets

To ensure that the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border Security are funded to the extent necessary to fully carry out their respective functions, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall separate the budget requests for each such entity.

#### (c) Fees

Fees imposed for a particular service, application, or benefit shall be deposited into the account established under subsection (a) that is for the bureau with jurisdiction over the function to which the fee relates.

#### (d) Fees not transferable

No fee may be transferred between the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border Security for purposes not authorized by section 1356 of title 8.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title IV, §476, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2209.)

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

#### Change of Name

Bureau of Border Security, referred to in subsecs. (a), (b), and (d), changed to Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement by Reorganization Plan Modification for the Department of Homeland Security, eff. Mar. 1, 2003, H. Doc. No. 108–32, 108th Congress, 1st Session, set out as a note under section 542 of this title.
Exhibit
10.13


Loan
Agreement (Short-Term)


Contract
No. 0153 (2008)


Borrower:
Dalian Chuming Meat Co. Ltd.


Business
License No. : WICE No.2102812123719


Legal
Representative: Huashan Shi


Address:
2028 Zuanshi St, Wafangdian, Dalian 116000


Account
Info: Bank of China, Liaoning Branch


Account
#:


Tel:
86716585 Fax: 86716686


Lender:
Bank of China, Liaoning Branch


Legal
Representative/Officer: Jianhong Wang


Address:
9 Zhongshan Square, Dalian


Tel:
82586901 Fax: 82586779


The
interest shall be paid quarterly. The 20thday of the last month of a
quarter is the expiry date of interest and the 21stday is the payment
date.





1. Amount
of loan: 30,000,000 RMB


2. Term
of loan: 11 months


3. Use of
loan: revolving fund


4.
Interest:


(a) Fixed
interest rate: 6.1589% (annual)


(b)
Interest=loan x number of days x daily interest rate


(c) Daily
interest rate=annual interest rate/360


5.
Interest payment date:


6. The
borrower shall receive all the loan within 30 days after 11/27/2008


7.
Penalty


(a)
Penalty of overdue repayment: agreed interest rate + 50%


(b)
Penalty of other usage: agreed interest rate + 100%


8. Date
of repayment: 10/26/2009


9. Amount
of repayment: 30,000,000 RMB


10.
Guaranty agreements:


(a)
Mortgage contracts entered by the borrower and Dalian Chuming Group Co. Ltd.
(“guarantor”)


i.
Contract No. 024 (2005)


ii.
Contract No. 025 (2005)


iii.
Contract No. 044 (2006)


iv.
Contract No. 017 (2007)


v.
Contract No. 023 (2007)


(b)
Mortgage contract entered by the borrower and Dalian Mingxing Livestock Co. Ltd.
(“guarantor”)----Contract No. 018 (2007)


(c)
Mortgage contract entered by the borrower and Fengqin Ma and the co-owner of her
property (“guarantor”)----Contract No. 037(2007)


(d)
Mortgage contract entered by the borrower and Huashan Shi and the co-owner of
his property (“guarantor”)----Contract No. 038(2007)


11.
Signing date: 11/27/2008
#### In re GRANT AVE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 9, 1903.)

In the matter of Grant avenue.

No opinion. Motion denied, as leave does not seem to be necessary in cases of this description.
# C_2008197EN.01003601.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2008 — Piccinni-Leopardi and Others v Commission

(Case T-390/04) (1)

1

(2008/C 197/65)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

1

---
Exhibit 21.0

SUBSIDIARIES

|                                  |  |                           
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Name                              |  | Jurisdiction
 of Formation
|CyberOptics Ltd.                  |  | United Kingdom            
|                                  |  |                           
|CyberOptics Holdings Ltd.         |  | United Kingdom            
|                                  |  |                           
|CyberOptics (Singapore)
 Pte. Ltd |  | Singapore                 
|                                  |  |                           
|CyberOptics Semiconductor,
 Inc.  |  | Minnesota                 
|                                  |  |                           
|CyberOptics (China) Co.,
 Ltd.    |  | Peoples Republic of China

---
Order entered January 9, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-22-01371-CV

IN RE DANNY SILVERS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Cr iminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F17-14132

ORDER Before Justices Reichek, Carlyle, and Kennedy

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DENY relator’s petition for

writ of mandamus.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE
JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

We consent to the incorporation by reference and use of our report dated
February 13, 2006 on the consolidated financial statements of Rurban Financial
Corp. and Subsidiaries, which appears in Rurban Financial Corp.'s Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2005, in Rurban Financial Corp.'s Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (SEC Registration No. 333-46989), filed February 27, 1998,
pertaining to the Rurban Financial Corp. Stock Option Plan.

                                      /s/ BKD, LLP
                                      -------------------------------------
                                          BKD, LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 24, 2006

                                                                            108.
H. Res. 1143 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 18, 2024. 

Whereas, beginning on April 13, 2024, Iran for the first time 

ever launched a direct attack on Israel that included over 

350 missiles and drones launched directly from Iran and 

its proxies toward Israel; 

Whereas this direct attack on Israel followed: Iran-backed 

Hamas’ massive, unprovoked attack on Israel on October 

7 that killed over 1,200 people; months of cross-border 

attacks from Iran-backed Hezbollah into Israel from Lebanon; over 170 attacks on United States troops in the 

Middle East by Iran-backed militias since October; and 

months of Iran-backed Houthi missile and drone attacks 

on global shipping; 

Whereas 99 percent of the projectiles fired at Israel were 

intercepted by Israel, the United States, the United 

Kingdom, France, and Jordan, minimizing casualties and 

other damage from this unprecedented, brazen attack by 

Iran; 

Whereas Israel intercepted these missiles and drones using a 

variety of air defense systems and other defense articles, 

including many procured from or co-produced with the 

United States, demonstrating the vital importance of the 

United States and Israel’s security partnership; and 
2 

•HRES 1143 EH 

Whereas Israel is a major non-NATO ally and Major Strategic Partner of the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) condemns Iran’s unprecedented drone and missile attack on Israel; 

(2) reaffirms and supports Israel’s right to self-defense; 

(3) stands with Israel as it defends itself against 

Iran’s attack and seeks to re-establish deterrence against 

Iran and its proxies; 

(4) fully supports Israel’s right to respond to this 

aggression through military, diplomatic, economic, and 

other necessary means; 

(5) calls on all countries to unequivocally condemn 

Iran’s attack on Israel; 

(6) commends the United States military, the 

United Kingdom, France, and Jordan for intercepting 

Iranian missiles and drones and thereby limiting the 

damage from this unprecedented attack on Israel; 

(7) reaffirms the United States commitment to 

Israel’s security, including through security assistance 

and defense sales; 

(8) urges full enforcement of United States sanctions and export controls against Iran to impede Iran’s 

nuclear program, missile and drone development, and 

funding of terrorist groups and proxies, including 
3 

•HRES 1143 EH 

Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad, the 

Houthis, and militias in Iraq and Syria; and 

(9) stands ready to assist Israel with emergency resupply and other security, diplomatic, and intelligence 

support. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES' CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 26, 1999 AS SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-K FOR THE
YEAR AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1999
<CASH>                                           3,294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,593
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,034
<INVENTORY>                                     33,361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,542
<PP&E>                                          46,427
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (13,947)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,370
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           249
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,898
<SALES>                                        129,744
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,744
<CGS>                                           94,157
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,554
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 543
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (21,479)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (6,017)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15,462)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,462)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.65)


</TABLE>
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2006 – Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted matt black
bottle)**

**(Case T-188/04)**

Community trade mark – Shape of a frosted matt black bottle – Absolute ground of refusal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Lack of distinctive character – Infringement of the rights of the defence – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94

1.                     *Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(3) and (6)) (see paras 15-18, 44-47)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Compliance with rights of the defence (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art.
73) (see paras 28-30, 41-42)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2004 (Case R 104/2001-4) concerning registration of a mark in the form of a frosted matt black bottle as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Freixenet, SA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a frosted matt black bottle for goods in Class 33 – Application No 32540 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Refusal of registration |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 February 2004 (Case R 104/2001-4); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |