alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31989D0505 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989D0505

**89/505/EEC: Commission Decision of 18 July 1989 laying down the criteria governing entry in registers for hybrid breeding pigs **

*
Official Journal L 247 , 23/08/1989 P. 0033 - 0033 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 30 P. 0107 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 30 P. 0107 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 18 July 1989 laying down the criteria governing entry in registers for hybrid breeding pigs (89/505/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 88/661/EEC of 19 December 1988 on the zootechnical standards applicable to breeding animals of the porcine species (1), and in particular the third indent of Article 10 (1) thereof,

Whereas in all Member States' registers are maintained or established by breeders' associations, breeding organizations, private undertakings or official services;

Whereas it is therefore necessary to lay down the criteria for the entering of hybrid breeding pigs in registers;

Whereas precise conditions relating to lineage and identification must be fulfilled prior to entry in the register;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Zootechnics,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

To qualify for entry in the register hybrid breeding pigs must:

- be identified after birth according to the rules of that register,

- have parentage established in accordance with the rules of that register.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 July 1989.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 382, 31. 12. 1988, p. 36.
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 Bigfoot Project Investments Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tom Biscardi, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 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: November 14, 2017  /s/ Tom Biscardi Tom Biscardi Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer  1
§ 1.100 Content of this title. This title contains— ( a ) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to Federal agencies on government-wide policies and procedures for the award and administration of grants and agreements; and
( b ) Federal agency regulations implementing that OMB guidance.
§ 719.52 What types of field actions must be coordinated with the General Counsel? ( a ) Requests from contractors for exceptions or deviations from this part must be submitted to the contracting officer and Department Counsel, and approved by the General Counsel or his/her delegee.
( b ) Requests from contractors for approval to initiate or defend litigation, or to appeal from adverse decisions, where legal issues of first impression, sensitive issues, issues of national significance to the Department or of broad applicability to the Government that might adversely impact its operations are involved must be coordinated by Department Counsel with the General Counsel or his/her delegee.
( c ) Department Counsel must inform the General Counsel of any Significant Matter, as defined in this part, and must coordinate any action involving a Significant Matter with the General Counsel, or his/her delegee, as directed by the General Counsel or his/her delegee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MERLE PAYNE,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 19 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is 

DENIED.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. WINTERS v. EATON et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 15, 1915.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Bryan L. Winters, against Edward W. Eaton and others, individually and as members of the Board of Supervisors in and for the County of Tioga, and Fred G. Horton, Clerk of said Board of

Supervisors.

No opinion. Motion denied, on the 'ground that the court has no jurisdiction to grant the writ asked for.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6957

TONNIE L. NORTHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-01504-CMH) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: December 18, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tonnie L. Northam, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tonnie L. Northam seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Northam has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss 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
#### § 745.122 Use of Federal funds.

Federal funds administered by a Federal department or agency may not be expended for research involving human subjects unless the requirements of this policy have been satisfied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 609 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 House Calendar No. 100
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 609

                          [Report No. 115-401]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2201) to amend the 
   Securities Act of 1933 to exempt certain micro-offerings from the 
     registration requirements of such Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2017

     Mr. Buck, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2201) to amend the 
   Securities Act of 1933 to exempt certain micro-offerings from the 
     registration requirements of such Act, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2201) to amend the 
Securities Act of 1933 to exempt certain micro-offerings from the 
registration requirements of such Act, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 
shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Financial Services; (2) the amendment printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 
offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question; and 
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
                                                 House Calendar No. 100

115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 609

                          [Report No. 115-401]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2201) to amend the 
   Securities Act of 1933 to exempt certain micro-offerings from the 
     registration requirements of such Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 7, 2017

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

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

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

October 30, 2013

d1030 

# Order

Clerk October 30, 2013

147875 & (28)(32)(33)

DESMOND M. WHITE and ROBERT DAVIS,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 147875

COA: 318683

Wayne CC: 13

- 013071

- AW

CITY OF DETROIT ELECTION COMMISSION,

CITY CLERK FOR THE CITY OF DETROIT,

WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF CANVASSERS,

and ACCUFORM, INC.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

MIKE DUGGAN,

Intervening Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED.

The motion to strike the intervening defendant’s brief in opposition is DENIED. The

application for leave to appeal prior to decision by the Court of Appeals is considered,

and it is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that the questions presented will

cause a “delay in final adjudication . . . likely to cause substantial harm” or that “the

appeal is from a ruling that a provision o f the Michigan Constitution, a Michigan statute,

a rule or regulation included in the Michigan Administrative Code, or any other action of

the legislative or executive branch of state government is invalid.” MCR 7.302(B)(4).

The question of awarding cost s is reserved until further order of the Court.
# Blended Wing Body Airliner

ET-2000-07-013-HQ NASA’s Aerospace Research and Technology Base Program is developing technologies for a new type of aircraft that would be more economical and efficient than today’s airliners. This revolutionary flying wing configuration, called the Blended Wing Body (BWB), has a thick airfoil-shaped fuselage section that combines the engines, wings, and body into a single lifting surface.

The BWB could carry as many as 800 passengers over 7,000 miles at a cruise speed of about 560 mph. Compared to today’s airliners, it would reduce fuel consumption, harmful emissions, operating cost, and noise levels. NASA is developing high-payoff technologies for a new generation of safe, environmentally compatible, and highly productive aircraft.

Airplanes of the future may look very different from those of today. Be an engineer and experiment with a possible new wing type.

Additional information is available over the Internet at: http://www.aerospace.nasa.gov/

National Aeronautics and Space Administration11"

8.5"



### 4 2 1 1. Fold 8.5 x 11 inch paper diagonally as shown.

2. Make a 1/2 inch fold along the previously folded edge.



### 3 3. Make a second 1/2 inch fold. 

# Ring Wing Glider

This wing demonstrates the great room there is for aeronautics innovation. Can you design a better wing?

4. Curl the ends of the paper to make a ring and tuck one end into the fold of the other.

5. Gently grasp the “V” between the two “crown points” with your thumbs and index fingers and toss the glider lightly forward.

The folds in the paper make an airplane wing where the front end is heavy and the back end is light. Curling the ends to make a ring changes the shape of the wing and improves the wing’s flight performance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATIN EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1997 FORM 10-Q OF HOLCO MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION-I AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                     9,438
<RECEIVABLES>                                       72
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              159
<BONDS>                                          8,771
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                         583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,519
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   433
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     16
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 14
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        14
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
#### Trabue, Davis & Co. *v.*Shotts.

*Application for Rehearing after Final Judgment at Tmw.*

*1. When appeal lies.*— An order made by a circuit judge at chambers, dismissing an application for a rehearing after final judgment at law (Code, § 3161), is not a final judgment or decree which will support an appeal; and if it be within the terms of the statute granting an appeal from an order denying certain remedial writs *{Lb.*§ 3923), the limitation of such appeal is sixty days.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marion.

Tried before the Hon. H. C. Speake.

The appellants in this case brought an action against L. C. Shotts, but were defeated on the trial, judgment on verdict being rendered for the defendant. Within three months after the rendition of this judgment, they filed their petition, veri*370fied by affidavit, asking a rehearing of the ease on the ground of surprise, accident, mistake, or fraud. On the hearing of the petition, in vacation, the circuit judge held it to be insufficient, and made an order dismissing it. The appeal was sued out from this order, and it was here assigned as error. The appellee submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal.

McClelland *&*NbSmitii, for the motion.

McGuire, Collier & Sanford, *contra.*

STONE, C. J.

There was, in the ruling from which this appeal was prosecuted, no final judgment or decree of a court. The decision appealed from was that of a judge at chambers. The case does not fall within section 3916 of the Code of 1876.

Even if we concede that -this case is covered by section 3923 of the Code, the appeal was not taken in time, and must be dismissed on that account. See *Ex parte*North, 49 Ala. 385 ; *Ex parte*Walker, 54 Ala. 577.

Appeal dismissed.
#### § 784.2 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Contract* means procurement contracts, grants, agreements, understandings and other arrangements (including Cooperative Research and Development Agreements [CRADAs], Work for Others and User Facility agreements, which includes research, development, or demonstration work, and includes any assignment or substitution of the parties, entered into, with, or for the benefit of DOE.

*Contractor* means entities performing under contracts as defined above.

*Patent Counsel* means the DOE Patent Counsel assisting the contracting activity.
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:55 PM

Subject: Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support Documents for 

Commercial Ice Makers (ACIM) Energy Conservation Standards (ECS) [RIN 1904–AC39, Docket No. 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0037]

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will hold a public meeting on Thursday, 

02/16/2012, to discuss and receive comments on the Preliminary Technical Support 

Documents for Commercial Ice Makers (ACIM) Energy Conservation Standards (ECS).

[RIN 1904–AC39, Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0037]

DOE will be proposing at the public meeting, for public comment and discussion, the 

following as part of the ACIM Preliminary Analysis ECS : equipment classes that DOE 

plans to analyze for establishing energy conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers; the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE is using 

to evaluate standards for this equipment; the results of preliminary analyses performed 

by DOE for this equipment; the potential energy conservation standard levels derived 

from these analyses that DOE could consider for this equipment; and any other issues 

relevant to the development of energy conservation standards for automatic commercial 

ice makers.

For additional details of this ACIM ECS public meeting please go to the following EERE 

website:

 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/automatic_ice_making_equi

pment.html

Regards,

Charles Llenza

Project Manager/Engineer

US Department of Energy

(202)586-2192(work)

(202)287-1590(fax)

Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

*******************************************************************************************

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 

INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMES ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT 

THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR AN EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE 

TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OF THIS 

COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS NON-PUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION 

ABOUT ANY CONSUMER OR CUSTOMER OF THE SENDER OR INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE FURTHER PROHIBITED 

UNDER PENALTY OF LAW FROM USING OR DISCLOSING THE INFORMATION TO ANY THIRD PARTY BY PROVISIONS OF 

THE FEDERAL GRAMM-LEACH-BAILEY ACT. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE IN 

ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN OR DESTROY THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO 

ASSURE THAT IT IS NOT READ, COPIED, OR DISTRIBUTED BY OTHERS.
Subpart 1533.1 - Protests

Parent topic: PART 1533 - PROTESTS, DISPUTES AND APPEALS

1533.103 Protests to the Agency.

Protests to the Agency are processed pursuant to the requirements of FAR 33.103. Contracting

Officers must include in every solicitation the provision at 1552.233-70, Notice of Filing

Requirements for Agency Protests.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 439 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 439

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 15, 2005.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the 
resolution (H. Res. 437) to establish the Select Bipartisan Committee to 
Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. The 
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening 
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one 
motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this op inion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20098

MICHAEL GREENLEE; MARSHA GREENLEE, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-97-CV-263)

February 5, 1999 Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, POLITZ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *



### Michael ane Marsha Greenlee appeal an adverse summary judgment in their action seeking refund of the balance of the sum paid in settlement of past due tax

claims. Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of counsel and pertinent
parts of the record, and finding no reversible error, the judgment appeal is

AFFIRMED.