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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549



FORM 6-K

REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Dated February 7, 2006



Commission File Number: 001-14666



MITTAL STEEL COMPANY N.V.

(Translation of registrants name into English)



15th Floor, Hofplein 20

3032 AC Rotterdam

The Netherlands

(Address of principal executive offices)



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.



Form 20-FxForm 40-Fo



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): _____



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): _____



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



YesoNox



If Yes marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):  82-________







| |  | 
| |  | 





---





In February 2006, Mittal Steel Company N.V. gave the presentation attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Exhibit List

|Exhibit No.  | Description                                                                                              | 
|------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Exhibit 99.1 | Mittal Steel Company N.V.'s presentation given to investors concerning Mittal Steels offer for Arcelor.
|             |                                                                                                         



---



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: February 7, 2006



| | By: | /s/ Henk Scheffer
| | --- | -----------------
| |     | Name:            
| |     | Title:           



---



Exhibit Index

|Exhibit No.  |                                                                                                              | Description
|------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------
|Exhibit 99.1 | Mittal Steel Company N.V.'s presentation given to investors concerning Mittal Steels
    offer for Arcelor.
|             |                                                                                                              |            

---
§ 282.4 Policy. It is DoD policy that: ( a ) Claims shall be settled and advance decisions rendered in accordance with all pertinent statutes and regulations, and after consideration of other relevant authorities.
( b ) This part applies to certain claim settlement and advance decision functions that, by statute or delegation, are vested in the Department of Defense or the Secretary of Defense. Appendix B to this part describes the claims included under these functional authorities.
EXHIBIT 3.i.f


I, EDWARD J. FREEL, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF RENEWAL OF "THE UNITED STATES BASKETBALL LEAGUE, INC.",
FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON THE TWENTY-THIRD DAY OF JUNE, A.D. 1995, AT 9
O'CLOCK A.M.















                                            /S/ Edward J. Freel
                                            Edward J. Freel, Secretary of State
2036407 8100
001253249
                                            Authentication: 0446455
                                            Date:  05-18-00


<PAGE>






                     Certificate for Renewal and Revival of Charter

The United States Basketball League, Inc. a corporation organized under the laws
of Delaware, the charter of which was voided for non-payment of taxes, now
desires to procure a restoration, renewal and revival of its charter, and hereby
certifies as follows:

1 The name of the corporation is The United States Basketball League, Inc.

2. Its registered office in the State of Delaware is located at 15 East North
Street, City of Dover, Zip Code 19901, County of Kent. The name and address of
its registered agent is United Corporate Services, Inc., 15 East North Street,
Dover, DE 19901.

3. The date of filing of the original Certificate of Incorporation in Delaware
was May 29, 1984.

4. The date when restoration, renewal, and revival of the charter of this
company is to commence is the 29th day of February, 1988, same being prior to
the date of the expiration of the charter. This renewal and revival of the
charter of this corporation is to be perpetual.

5. This corporation was duly organized and carried on the business authorized by
its charter until the First day of March A.D. 1988, at which time its charter
became inoperative and void for nonpayment of taxes and this certificate for
renewal and revival is filed by authority of the duly elected directors of the
corporation in accordance with the Laws of the State of Delaware.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, and in compliance with the provisions of Section 312 of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, as amended, providing for
the renewal, extension and restoration of charters. Daniel T. Meisenheimer, III,
the last and acting President, and Richard C. Meisenheimer, the last and acting
Secretary of The United States Basketball League, Inc., have hereunto set their
hands to this certificate this 20th day of June, 1995.

                                        /S/ Daniel T. Meisenheimer, III
                                          Last and Acting President

ATTEST:
                                        /S/ Richard C. Meisenheimer
                                          Last and Acting Secretary
§ 634.47 Disposition of driving records. Procedures will be established to ensure prompt notice to the installation law enforcement officer when a person assigned to or employed on the installation is being transferred to another installation, being released from military service, or ending employment. ( a ) If persons being transferred to a new installation have valid points or other entries on the driving records, the law enforcement officer will forward the records to the law enforcement officer of the gaining installation. Gaining installation law enforcement officers must coordinate with applicable commanders and continue any existing suspension or revocation based on intoxicated driving or accumulation of traffic points. Traffic points for persons being transferred will continue to accumulate as specified in § 634.46 (g).
( b ) Driving records of military personnel being discharged or released from active duty will be retained on file for 2 years and then destroyed. In cases of immediate reenlistment, change of officer component or military or civilian retirement when vehicle registration is continued, the record will remain active.
( c ) Driving records of civilian personnel terminating employment will be retained on file for 2 years and then destroyed.
( d ) Driving records of military family members containing point assessments or other entries will be forwarded to the sponsor's gaining installation in the same manner as for service members. At the new installation, records will be analyzed and made available temporarily to the sponsor's unit commander or supervisor for review.
( e ) Driving records of retirees electing to retain installation driving privileges will be retained. Points accumulated or entries on the driver record regarding suspensions, revocations, moving violations, or chargeable accidents will not be deleted from driver records except per § 634.46 (g) and (h).
( f ) Army users will comply with paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section by mailing the individual's DA Form 3626 to the gaining installation provost marshal.
#### STATE v. NOBLE

No. 99P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 222

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 November 1997.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSimulation and analysis of differential global positioning system for civil helicopter operationsA Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) computer simulation was developed, to provide a versatile tool for assessing DGPS referenced civil helicopter navigation. The civil helicopter community will probably be an early user of the GPS capability because of the unique mission requirements which include offshore exploration and low altitude transport into remote areas not currently served by ground based Navaids. The Monte Carlo simulation provided a sufficiently high fidelity dynamic motion and propagation environment to enable accurate comparisons of alternative differential GPS implementations and navigation filter tradeoffs. The analyst has provided the capability to adjust most aspects of the system, the helicopter flight profile, the receiver Kalman filter, and the signal propagation environment to assess differential GPS performance and parameter sensitivities. Preliminary analysis was conducted to evaluate alternative implementations of the differential navigation algorithm in both the position and measurement domain. Results are presented to show that significant performance gains are achieved when compared with conventional GPS but that differences due to DGPS implementation techniques were small. System performance was relatively insensitive to the update rates of the error correction information.Document ID19840011249Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsDenaro, R. P.*(Theory and Applications Unlimited Corp. Los Gatos, CA, United States)*Cabak, A. R.*(Theory and Applications Unlimited Corp. Los Gatos, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1983Subject CategoryAircraft Communications And NavigationReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-166534NAS 1.26:166534Accession Number84N19317Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 532-01-11CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS2-11339Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840011249.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 37.655 Must I specify the frequency of IPAs' periodic audits of for-profit participants?

If your expenditure-based TIA provides for periodic audits of a for-profit participant by an IPA, you must specify the frequency for those audits. You should consider having an audit performed during the first year of the award, when the participant has its IPA do its next financial statement audit, unless the participant already had a systems audit due to other Federal awards within the past two years. The frequency thereafter may vary depending upon the dollars the participant is expending annually under the award, but it is not unreasonable to require an updated audit every two to three years to reverify that the participant's systems are reliable (the audit then would cover the two or three-year period between audits). The DCAA is a source of advice on audit frequencies if your TIA provides for audits by IPAs.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-125761, 333-104703, 333-60942, 333-59041,333-59043, 333-47433, 333-09549 and 333-03769 on Form S-8 and RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-120379, 333-113953, 333-117551 and 333-120379 on Form S-3of our reports dated March 14, 2006 (which report expressed an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraphs related to the changedpresentation of the consolidated statement of cash flows) relating to thefinancial statements and financial statement schedule of SerologicalsCorporation and Subsidiaries and management’s report on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Serologicals Corporation and Subsidiaries for the year ended January 1,2006.

 
| /s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |
| Atlanta,  Georgia                   |
| March 14,  2006                |

 

----
Exhibit 32a

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of International Bancshares Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis E. Nixon, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |  | By:   | /s/DENNIS E. NIXONDennis E. Nixon President and Principal Executive Officer
| |  | ----- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Date: | March 15, 2006                                                             

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether on and before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ Essential Air Service at ) ) BRADFORD, PENNSYLVANIA ) Docket OST

- 2003

- 14528 DUBOIS, PENNSYLVANIA ) Docket OST

- 2004

- 17617 FRANKLIN/OIL CITY, PENNSYLVANIA ) Docket OST

- 1997

- 2523 JAMESTOWN, NEW YORK ) Docket OST

- 2003

- 14950 PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA/ ) Docket OST

- 2005

- 20734 MARIETTA, OHIO ) ) Under 49 U.S.C. §41731 et seq. ) __________________________________________)

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON SILVER AIRWAYS PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE SUBSIDIZED AIR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITIES OF BRADFORD, DUBOIS, AND FRANKLIN/OIL CITY, PENNSYLVANIA AS WELL AS JAMESTOWN, NEW YORK

AND PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA/MARIETTA, OHIO

Correspondence with regard to this document should be addressed to:

Mickey Bowman

Vice President Essential Air Service Silver Airways 1100 Lee Wagener Blvd, Suite 201 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315 Telephone: 954

- 302

- 5929

Fax: 270

- 689

- 2180

E

- Mail: mbowman@gosilver.com

On June 29, 2012 Silver Airways tendered its proposal to continue providing subsidized Essential Air Service to the communities of Bradford, DuBois, and Franklin/Oil City, Pennsylvania as well as the communities of Jamestown,

New York and Parkersburg, West Virginia/Marietta, Ohio. Contained in that proposal was the following paragraph, “Silver Airways requests that the Department of Transportation and the communities of Bradford, DuBois, Franklin/Oil City, PA as well as Jamestown, NY a nd Parkersburg, WV/Marietta, OH waive the right to hold

- in Silver Airways upon issuance of a 120 notice to terminate service. While we do not foresee this to be an issue and plan on serving these communities for many years to come if selected again, we ca nnot be operationally constrained and kept in a market indefinitely, without the ability to adapt to the changing marketplace.’

In subsequent discussions with community representatives in these communities it has become apparent that this language is a so urce of concern. In the spirit of cooperation and community commitment, Silver Airways hereby agrees to delete this stipulation from its bid for service.

Resp ectfully submitted: September 26 , 2012
Mickey Bowman

Vice President Essential Air Service Silver Airways
§ 631.14 Army policy. ( a ) Soldiers, military and/or Department of the Army Civilian (DAC) police performing off-installation operations must be thoroughly familiar with applicable agreements, constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385) in the Continental United States (CONUS) and United States-host nation agreements in areas OCONUS.
( b ) Military and/or DAC police assigned to off-installation operations have the sole purpose of enforcing parts, and orders pertaining to persons subject to their jurisdiction.
( c ) Military and/or DAC police accompanying civilian law enforcement officers remain directly responsible to, and under the command of, U.S. Army superiors. Military and DAC police may come to the aid of civilian law enforcement officers to prevent the commission of a felony or injury to a civilian law enforcement officer.
( d ) Regional Directors of the Army Installation Management Agency (IMA), Commander, Army Materiel Command (AMC), and Commander, Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) may authorize subordinate commanders to establish off-installation operations within the limits imposed by higher authority, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385) in CONUS, and United States-host nation agreements in OCONUS areas— ( 1 ) To assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
( 2 ) In conjunction with military activities.
( 3 ) To safeguard the health and welfare of Soldiers.
( 4 ) When the type of offenses or the number of Soldiers frequenting an area is large enough to warrant such operations.
( e ) The constraints on the authority of Soldiers and/or DAC police to act off-Installation, (Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385) in CONUS and United States-host nation agreements in OCONUS areas) and the specific scope of off-installation operations will be clearly delineated in all authorizations for off-installation operations. Off-installation operations will be coordinated with the local installation commander through the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), or higher authority, and appropriate civilian law enforcement agencies.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

MEMORANDUM

TO: Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Boston/New York OIG Region 

Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Washington/Philadelphia 

 OIG Region ◄▬▬

Special Agent in Charge//Investigation, Atlanta OIG Region 

Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Chicago OIG Region 

Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Long Beach OIG Office 

FROM: Assistant Inspector General for Investigation

SUBJECT: Redelegation of Authority to Open Investigative Cases 

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by a delegation from the Inspector General, Delegation 

Control Number EF/EFI/157, certified July 23, 2004, and subject to the reservations 

noted below, I hereby redelegate to you, anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, or 

your successor in function, the authority under Sections 4 (a) (1), 6 (a) (2), and 7 (a) of 

the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to open investigative cases within your 

respective geographic areas of responsibility.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority 

delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

The following authorities are not delegated:

A. The authority to open cases which involve allegations of misconduct by present 

employees of the Department, or allegations of misconduct by public officials

elected to federal or state-wide office;

B. The authority to open cases which involve allegations of misconduct by Office of 

Inspector General employees; and 

C. The authority to sign Advice of Investigation forms.
Page 2 - Redelegation of Authority to Open Investigative Cases 

III. REDELEGATION

No further redelegation is authorized.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal Delegation 

Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this authority. I hereby ratify 

actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of certification.

_____________/s/______________ 

 William D. Hamel

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 7/10/2009

Certified Date: 7/17/2009

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EFI/EFD3IW/183
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD DEVONE GREEN

No. 308A97

(Filed 5 December 1997)

Appeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 126 N.C. App. 437, 486 S.E.2d 491 (1997), finding no error in the judgment entered by Llewellyn, J., on 15 November 1995 in Superior Court, New Hanover County, sentencing defendant for a class I felony pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 90-108(b). Heard in the Supreme Court 19 November 1997.

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Lars F. Nance, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.*

*Daniel Shatz for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the Superior Court, New Hanover County, for entry of judgment as upon conviction of the misdemeanor offense as set forth in N.C.G.S. § 90408(a)(7).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.