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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2470 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2470

     To authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of 
Reclamation within the A & B Irrigation District in the State of Idaho.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2006

   Mr. Craig introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of 
Reclamation within the A & B Irrigation District in the State of Idaho.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation 
Repayment Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. EARLY REPAYMENT OF A&B IRRIGATION DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 213 of the Reclamation 
Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390mm), any landowner within the A&B 
Irrigation District in the State (referred to in this Act as the 
``District'') may repay, at any time, the construction costs of 
District project facilities that are allocated to land of the landowner 
within the District.
    (b) Applicability of Full-Cost Pricing Limitations.--On discharge, 
in full, of the obligation for repayment of all construction costs 
described in subsection (a) that are allocated to each parcel of land 
of the landowner in the District, the parcels of land shall not be 
subject to the ownership and full-cost pricing limitations under 
Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, 
chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 
U.S.C. 371 et seq.), including the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (13 
U.S.C. 390aa et seq.).
    (c) Certification.--On request of a landowner that has repaid, in 
full, the construction costs described in subsection (a), the Secretary 
of the Interior shall provide to the landowner a certificate described 
in section 213(b)(1) of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 
390mm(b)(1)).
    (d) Effect.--Nothing in this Act--
            (1) modifies any contractual rights under, or amends or 
        reopens, the reclamation contract between the District and the 
        United States; or
            (2) modifies any rights, obligations, or relationships 
        between the District and landowners in the District under Idaho 
        State law.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 3570.90 Exception authority.

An RHS official may request, and the Administrator or designee may make, in individual cases, an exception to any requirement or provision of this subpart or address any omission of this subpart if the Administrator determines that application of the requirement or provision, or failure to take action in the case of an omission, would adversely affect the Government's interest.
# L_2021046EN.01000401.xml

| 10.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 46/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 46/4

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/154

of 3 February 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications
  ‘Λουκάνικο Πιτσιλιάς’ (Loukaniko Pitsilias) (PGI)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Cyprus’s application to register the name ‘Λουκάνικο Πιτσιλιάς’ (Loukaniko Pitsilias) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Cyprus’s application to register the name ‘Λουκάνικο Πιτσιλιάς’ (Loukaniko Pitsilias) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Λουκάνικο Πιτσιλιάς’ (Loukaniko Pitsilias) should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Λουκάνικο Πιτσιλιάς’ (Loukaniko Pitsilias) should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Λουκάνικο Πιτσιλιάς’ (Loukaniko Pitsilias) (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2. – Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 February 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 322, 30.9.2020, p. 45.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
13.302-4 Termination or cancellation of purchase orders.       (a) If a purchase order that has been accepted in writing by the contractor is to be terminated, the contracting officer shall process the termination in accordance with-                                                         (1)                         12.403 and 52.212-4(l) or (m) for commercial products and commercial services; or                                                            (2)                         part  49 or 52.213-4 for other than commercial products or commercial services.                                                                             (b) If a purchase order that has not been accepted in writing by the contractor is to be canceled, the contracting officer shall notify the contractor in writing that the purchase order has been canceled, request the contractor’s written acceptance of the cancellation, and proceed as follows:                                                         (1) If the contractor accepts the cancellation and does not claim that costs were incurred as a result of beginning performance under the purchase order, no further action is required (*i.e.,* the purchase order shall be considered canceled).                                                            (2) If the contractor does not accept the cancellation or claims that costs were incurred as a result of beginning performance under the purchase order, the contracting officer shall process the action as a termination prescribed in paragraph (a) of this subsection.    **Parent topic:** 13.302 Purchase orders.
17.206 Evaluation.

(a) In awarding the basic contract, the contracting officer shall, except as provided in paragraph (b)

of this section, evaluate offers for any option quantities or periods contained in a solicitation when it

has been determined prior to soliciting offers that the Government is likely to exercise the options.

(See 17.208.)

(b) The contracting officer need not evaluate offers for any option quantities when it is determined

that evaluation would not be in the best interests of the Government and this determination is

approved at a level above the contracting officer. An example of a circumstance that may support a

determination not to evaluate offers for option quantities is when there is a reasonable certainty that

funds will be unavailable to permit exercise of the option.

Parent topic: Subpart 17.2 - Options
Exhibit
31.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)
and 15d-14(a) as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002





I, John
Hanna., certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of The Fashion House Holdings,
Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:





a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.




THE
      FASHION HOUSE HOLDINGS, INC.Date: May
      14, 2008
            By:
            /s/John
      HannaJohn
      HannaChief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1





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 Kalex Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Arnold F. Sock, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 results of operations of the Company.











Date: December 21 , 2012
By:
/s/ Arnold F. SockArnold F. Sock

President (Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
#### § 3434.1 Applicability of regulations.

This part establishes the process to certify and designate a group of eligible educational institutions as Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities, as authorized by Section 7101 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA), 7 U.S.C. 3103; Public Law 110-246.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29648]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

[MCC FR 10-15]


Notice of the December 15, 2010 Millennium Challenge Corporation 
Board of Directors Meeting; Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation.

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Wednesday, December 15, 2010.

PLACE: Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information on the meeting may be 
obtained from Melvin Williams, Jr., Vice President, General Counsel and 
Corporate Secretary via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82c1edf0f2edf0e3f6e7f1e7e1f0e7f6e3f0fbc2efe1e1ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a0925383a25382b3e2f392f29382f3e2b38330a272929642d253c">[email protected]</span></a> or by 
telephone at (202) 521-3600.

STATUS: Meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Board of Directors (the ``Board'') of the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation (``MCC'') will hold a meeting to 
consider the selection of countries that will be eligible for FY 2011 
Millennium Challenge Account (``MCA'') assistance under Section 607 of 
the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (the ``Act''), codified at 22 
U.S.C. 7706; discussion of the Malawi Compact; and certain 
administrative matters. The agenda items are expected to involve the 
consideration of classified information and the meeting will be closed 
to the public.

    Dated: November 19, 2010.
Melvin F. Williams, Jr.,
VP/General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Millennium Challenge 
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2010-29648 Filed 11-19-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9211-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
###### Editorial Note on Part 47

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 64 FR 38108, July 15, 1999.

#### § 47.18 Fees and mileage.

Witnesses who are subpoenaed and who appear in the proceeding, including witnesses whose depositions are taken, shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States, and persons taking depositions shall be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States, to be paid by the party at whose request the deposition is taken. Witness fees and mileage shall be paid by the party at whose instance the witnesses appear, and claims therefor shall be presented to such party.
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00392-CR

CHANCE ROACH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 185th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1394753).

TO THE 185TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 16th day of April 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed 

by the trial court on April 25, 2014. After submitting the case 

on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by 

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered April 16, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Higley.
WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

October 23, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6459

THOMAS WAYNE BATCHELOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN L. BRYANT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District for the Eastern District of

North Carolina at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.

(CA-04-85-5)

Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: July 1, 2005

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Wayne Batchelor, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Wayne Batchelor seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Batchelor has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
98- 592.

#### United Auto Workers Local Union 1112 v. Philomena.

Franklin App. Nos. 97APE01-100 and 97APE01-69. Reported at 82 Ohio St.3d 1450, 695 N.E.2d 1148. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOSEPH BAKER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-191-TKW/MJF

RAMOS, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 41). No objections were filed.

Upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation and the case file, 

the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be 

dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915A(b)(1) and 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

4. The Clerk shall close the case file.

Case 5:20-cv-00191-TKW-MJF Document 42 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2022.

__________________________________

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00191-TKW-MJF Document 42 Filed 07/11/22 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LUKE ESTES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

3M COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

 Case No. 7:20cv137-MCR-GRJ

FINAL JUDGMENT

This action came before the Court for a jury trial with the Honorable M. Casey 

Rodgers presiding. The issues have been tried, resulting in a jury verdict in 

Plaintiff’s favor on April 30, 2021. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that final judgment is 

entered in favor of the Plaintiff, LUKE ESTES, and against Defendants, 3M 

COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC, 

AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO LLC, and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES 

LLC, in the amount of $2,450,500, together with costs taxed against Defendants. 

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS,

CLERK OF COURT

 May 2, 2021 /s/ 

DATE Deputy Clerk: Susan Simms

Case 7:20-cv-00137-MCR-GRJ Document 186 Filed 05/02/21 Page 1 of 1
#### Allan Nelson Linn, appellee, v. A Century of Progress, Inc., appellant.

Gen. No. 37,363.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

Rehearing denied November 19, 1934.

Miller, Gorham, Wales & Adams, for appellant. Royal W. Irwin, for appellee; Ewart Harris, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Mateliett

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Fred J. Trudeau, appellee, v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 8,820.

Opinion filed November 30, 1934.

Gower, Gray & Gower, for appellant. Vernon G. Butz, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.
### Attachment I II

MOVES2010b Input Files
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

KEVIN DONALDSON, AS

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SARAH C. DONALDSON, DECEASED AND KEVIN DONALDSON, AS

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SARAH C. DONALDSON, ON BEHALF

OF MICHAEL DONALDSON AND

PAMELA DOUGLAS, NATURAL

PARENTS AND STATUTORY HEIRS OF

DECENDENT SARAH C. DONALDSON

v.

DAVIDSON BROTHERS, INC., MICHAEL R. DAVIDSON, AND GEORGE E.

DONLEY

v.

LJF, INC., AND WILBERT QUADE

PETITION OF: LJF, INC. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 736 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of March, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### § 3431.24 Reporting requirements, monitoring, and close-out.

VMLRP participants will be required to submit periodic reports per the terms and conditions of their service agreements. In addition, the Secretary is responsible for ensuring that a VMLRP participant is complying with the terms and conditions of their service agreement, including any additional reporting or close-out requirements.
4.1705 Contract clauses.       (a)                    						            The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-14, Service Contract Reporting Requirements, in solicitations and contracts for services (including construction) that meet or exceed the thresholds at 4.1703, except for indefinite-delivery contracts. This clause is not required for actions entirely funded by DoD, contracts awarded with a generic entity identifier, or in classified solicitations, contracts, or orders.                                          (b)                    						            The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-15, Service Contract Reporting Requirements for Indefinite-Delivery Contracts, in solicitations and indefinite-delivery contracts for services (including construction) where one or more orders issued thereunder are expected to each meet or exceed the thresholds at 4.1703. This clause is not required for actions entirely funded by DoD, contracts awarded with a generic entity identifier, or in classified solicitations, contracts, or orders.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 4.17 - Service Contracts Inventory