alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| SUBSIDIARY                                           |   | JURISDICTION  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|
|                                                      |   |               |
| Cavico      Vietnam Company Limited                  |   | Vietnam            |
| Cavico      Bridge and Underground Construction JSC  |   | Vietnam       |
| Energy      Construction JSC                         |   | Vietnam       |
| Cavico      Hydropower Construction JSC              |   | Vietnam       |
| Cavico      Infrastructure Construction JSC          |   | Vietnam       |
| Cavico      Transport JSC                            |   | Vietnam       |
| Cavico      Construction Trading JSC                 |   | Vietnam       |
| Cavico      Power and Resource JSC                   |   | Vietnam       |
| Cavico      Tower                                    |   | Vietnam       |
| Cavico      Industry & Tech Service              |   | Vietnam       |
| Cavico      Manpower                                 |   | Vietnam       |
| Cavico      Stone & Mineral                      |   | Vietnam       |
| Cavico      PHI Cement                               |   | Vietnam       |
| Luong      Son International Tourist                 |   | Vietnam       |
| Cavico      Land                                     |   | Vietnam       |

----
#### § 948.53 Reestablishment.

Areas, subdivisions of areas, the distribution of representation among the subdivision of areas, or among marketing organizations within respective areas may be reestablished by the Secretary upon area committee recommendations. Upon approval therefor of respective committees affected thereby, areas may be reestablished. In recommending any such changes, the committee shall consider (a) the relative importance of new producing sections, (b) relative production, (c) changes in marketing organizations and their relative status in the industry, (d) the geographic locations of producing sections as they would affect the efficiency of administration of this part, and (e) other relevant factors.
H. Res. 1095

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 9 (legislative day, December 8), 2006.

Whereas on November 9, 2005, a series of terrorist bombs 

exploded at the Radisson, Hyatt, and Days Inn hotels in 

Amman, Jordan, resulting in the deaths of scores of civilians and the injuries of hundreds of others; 

Whereas Jordan has been targeted in several terrorist attacks 

over the past few years and likely remains a target for 

Islamic extremists; 

Whereas Jordan provided unequivocal support to the United 

States after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; 

Whereas Jordan has arrested suspected terrorists with possible ties to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda organization 

and has provided other critical support to the global war 

on terrorism; and 

Whereas Jordan remains a firm ally of the United 

States in the global war against terrorism and in helping 

to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
2

•HRES 1095 EH 

(1) notes with sorrow the one-year anniversary of 

the November 9, 2005, terrorist attacks in Amman, Jordan; 

(2) condemns in the strongest possible terms the 

November 9, 2005, terrorist attacks; 

(3) expresses its ongoing condolences to the families 

and friends of those individuals who were killed in the 

attacks and its sympathies to those individuals who were 

injured; 

(4) reiterates its support of the Jordanian people 

and its government; 

(5) values the strong and lasting friendship between Jordan and the United States and the continuing cooperation of the two nations in political, economic, and humanitarian endeavors; and 

(6) expresses its readiness to support and assist the 

Jordanian authorities in their efforts to pursue, disrupt, 

undermine, and dismantle the networks that plan and 

carry out such terrorist attacks as the November 9, 

2005, terrorist attacks in Amman, Jordan. 

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          31,721
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,620
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,340
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    184,834
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          27,383
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            26,237
<LOANS>                                        674,648
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 974,328
<DEPOSITS>                                     716,812
<SHORT-TERM>                                    47,822
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,227
<LONG-TERM>                                     83,537
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,822
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 974,328
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 28,700
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,731
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   586
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                36,017
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,679
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,216
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           20,801
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      660
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,809
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       8,587
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,587
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.41
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,116
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,179
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 18,468
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,964
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,151
<RECOVERIES>                                       173
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,646
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,910
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,736


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Lisa M. UU., Respondent, v Mario D. VV., Appellant.

— Appeal from that part of an order of the Family Court of Broome County, entered March 29, 1979, which directed appellant to pay respondent’s confinement expenses. Following commencement of a paternity proceeding by respondent, an order of filiation was entered. On December 7, 1978, an order was entered directing appellant to pay $15 per week in child support. This support order was modified by an order entered March 29, 1979 fixing respondent’s confinement expenses in the amount of $1,212.46 and directing appellant to reimburse the social services department for them at the rate of $5 per week. This modification was made pursuant to section 514 of the Family Court Act which provides that, "The father is liable to pay the reasonable expenses of the mother’s confinement and recovery and such reasonable expenses in connection with her pregnancy as the court in its discretion may deem proper.” (Family Ct Act, § 514.) On this appeal, appellant contends that section 514 of the Family Court Act is unconstitutional in that it violates the equal protection clauses of the New York State and United States Constitutions. Since the statute is being challenged on equal protection grounds, it should be read expansively, if possible, so as to include the improperly excluded class and thus preserve its constitutionality *(Goodell v Goodell,*77 AD2d 684, mot for lv to app den 51 NY2d 704). Accordingly, we read the statute in a gender-neutral manner authorizing the court to impose the obligation of paying for the confinement expenses of the mother of the child upon either the mother or father or both as the court, in its discretion, may deem proper. Under our interpretation, the court will then consider the means and responsibilities of each parent without regard to the sex of the parent. Such a construction eliminates any sex based discrimination and negates appellant’s contention that section 514 of the Family Court Act violates the equal protection clause. It appears from the record that at all times herein relevant respondent was a recipient of public assistance. Consequently, even though testimony was taken only from appellant at the hearing on the motion for modification of the support order, we conclude that no useful purpose would be served by reversing the order and remanding the matter back to Family Court for further proceedings to determine the means and responsibilities of both parties. So much of the order as appealed from, therefore, should be affirmed. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
NO. 07-07-0293-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

OCTOBER 23, 2007

______________________________

JEFFREY DAVID BAXTER, APPELLANT

V.

SHANNON KATHLEEN BAXTER, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NUMBER ONE OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY;

NO. 05-2558-FC1; HONORABLE SUZANNE BROOKS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before this Court is Jeffrey David Baxter’s Amended Motion to Dismiss this

appeal. The certificate of conference reflects that Shannon Kathleen Baxter is not

opposed to the motion being granted. Without passing on the merits of the appeal, Jeffrey

David Baxter’s motion is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Tex. R. App. P.
2

42.1(a)(1). Having dismissed the appeal at Mr. Baxter’s request, no motion for rehearing

will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice
§ 13.27 Computation of time. ( a ) In computing any period of time under this part or in an order issued thereunder, the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday or Sunday, a Federal legal holiday at the place where the action or event is to occur, or a day on which, because of emergency closure of the federal government in Washington, DC, NRC Headquarters does not open for business, in which event it includes the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or emergency closure.
( b ) When the period of time allowed is less than seven (7) days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, Federal legal holidays, and emergency closures shall be excluded from the computation.
( c ) Whenever an action is required within a prescribed period by a document served pursuant to § 13.26, no additional time is added to the prescribed period except in the following circumstances: ( 1 ) If a notice or document is served upon a participant, by first-class mail only, three (3) calendar days will be added to the prescribed period for all the participants in the proceeding.
( 2 ) If a notice or document is served upon a participant, by express mail or other expedited service only, two (2) calendar days will be added to the prescribed period for all the participants in the proceeding.
( 3 ) If a document is to be served by multiple service methods, such as partially electronic and entirely on an OSM, the additional number of days is computed according to the service method used to deliver the entire document, excluding courtesy copies, to all of the other participants in the proceeding. The presiding officer may determine the calculation of additional days when a participant is not entitled to receive an entire filing served by multiple methods.
( 4 ) In mixed service proceedings where all participants are not using the same filing and service method, the number of days for service will be determined by the presiding officer based on considerations of fairness and efficiency. The same number of additional days will be added to the prescribed period for all the participants in the proceeding with the number of days being determined by the slowest method of service being used in the proceeding.
( d ) To be considered timely, a document must be served: ( 1 ) By 5 p.m. Eastern Time for a document served in person or by expedited service; and
( 2 ) By 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time for a document served by the E-Filing system.
[72 FR 49153, Aug. 28, 2007]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-736-WKW

)

SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN )

HUNDRED ($74,700) DOLLARS IN )

UNITED STATES CURRENCY, )

)

Defendant. )

RULE 26(f) ORDER

The parties are hereby reminded of the obligation, imposed by Rule 26(f) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, to confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan. The Rule 26(f)

report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable but not later than

November 2, 2006.

The longstanding practice in this district is that dispositive motions shall be filed no later

than 90 days prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary from that schedule, they should

present, in the plan, specific case related reasons for the requested variance.

This case will be set for trial before the undersigned judge during one of that judge's

regularly scheduled civil trial terms. The pretrial date is normally set within four to six weeks of

a scheduled trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms are available on the court's

website located at http://almd.uscourts.gov in the civil case information section.

This court may or may not hold a scheduling conference before issuing a scheduling

order. If the court holds a scheduling conference, counsel may participate in the scheduling

conference by conference call.

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 8 Filed 10/12/2006 Page 1 of 2
The scheduling order entered by the court will follow the form of the Uniform Scheduling

Order adopted by the judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is also available on the

court's website.

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35 of the Appendix of Forms to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE this 12th day of October, 2006.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 8 Filed 10/12/2006 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
             RFMSI SERIES 2006-S10 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
226 So.2d 58

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence “Bob” GREEN.

No. 50070.

Sept. 4, 1969.

In re: Lawrence “Bob” Green applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                   

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           153,025
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 179,578
<CASH>                                          21,801
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         480,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,994,129
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                110,116
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                       12,633,204
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                254,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     260,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,994,129
<PREMIUMS>                                           9
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              3,047
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 203
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  75,761
<BENEFITS>                                       1,333
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     15,378
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            42,353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,302
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,399
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,903
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,903
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             280
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (5)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,784
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,213
<PP&E>                                             305
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (203)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          (2,494)
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,802
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,220
<SALES>                                          5,757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,757
<CGS>                                            3,214
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,785
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 294
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    465
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (2)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       463
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12



</TABLE>
§ 1017.10 Adverse effect test. In order for information to be identified as UCNI, it must be determined that the unauthorized dissemination of the information under review could reasonably be expected to result in a significant adverse effect on the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security by significantly increasing the likelihood of: ( a ) Illegal production of a nuclear weapon; or
( b ) Theft, diversion, or sabotage of nuclear material, equipment, or facilities.
734.002-70 USAID policy.

In order for an USAID acquisition to be considered a major system acquisition it must meet the

criteria of OMB Circular A–109 and FAR part 34, and must have an estimated value of $15 million or

more during the first year of the contract. All major systems acquisition must be approved in

advance by the M/OAA Director.

Parent topic: PART 734—MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3004 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Phosphor YOX, yttrium oxide phosphor, 

activated by europium. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2006 

Mr. REID (for Mr. ROCKEFELLER) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Phosphor YOX, yttrium 

oxide phosphor, activated by europium. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PHOSPHOR YOX, YTTRIUM OXIDE PHOSPHOR, 

4 ACTIVATED BY EUROPIUM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 3004 IS 

‘‘ 9902.32.37 Phosphor YOX, yttrium 

oxide phosphor, activated by 

europium inorganic products 

of a kind used as 

luminophores (CAS No. 

68585–82–0) (provided for 

in subheading 3206.50.00) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS