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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 998 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5099) to provide disaster assistance to agricultural producers for crop and livestock losses, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 

Mr. BARROW submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5099) to provide 

disaster assistance to agricultural producers for crop and 

livestock losses, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That immediately after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 5099) to provide disaster assistance 

6 to agricultural producers for crop and livestock losses, and 

7 for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 

8 dispensed with. All points of order against the bill and 

9 against its consideration are waived. General debate shall 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 998 IH 

1 be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equal2 ly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking mi3 nority member of the Committee on Agriculture, and 20 

4 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 

5 and ranking minority member of each of the Committees 

6 on the Budget, Transportation and Infrastructure, Armed 

7 Services, and Resources. After general debate the bill shall 

8 be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 

9 The bill shall be considered as read. It shall be in order 

10 to consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute 

11 if offered by Representative Peterson of Minnesota (or his 

12 designee). All points of order against the amendment (ex13 cept for those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI) are 

14 waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 

15 amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill 

16 to the House with such amendments as may have been 

17 adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the 

18 House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 

19 the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature 

20 of a substitute offered by Mr. Peterson of Minnesota (or 

21 his designee). The previous question shall be considered 

22 as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 

23 passage without intervening motion except one motion to 

24 recommit with or without instructions. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
§ 299.3 Definitions and interpretations. ( a ) As used in this part 299, *act* means the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, sections 201-902, 52 Stat. 1040 (21 U.S.C. 321-392), with all amendments thereto.
( b ) The definitions and interpretations contained in section 201 of the act shall be applicable to such terms when used in this part 299.
( c ) The term *official name* means, with respect to a drug or ingredient thereof, the name designated in this part 299 under section 508 of the act as the official name.
1997 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-23-1997

Yeskey v. PA Dept Corrections

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 96-7292

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1997 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Yeskey v. PA Dept Corrections" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 165.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/165
γΙεΖζ/!Ι
..- .

- ._ . I.—

• ~-. .1—i. •i

— -I. - I

• I. I -- I I•

.1 I •• .11 • I IS I~I S — II •~

II.. — 5~I. •II I I •I — • • —. •IS

— I I I I I— I • — I I —. • — I •~

I • III

- S S I• I SI .1 I —

• I ~ II _•I_ I •— - I • I

• - - - I. • •.• — — I I— I •III

• II I I — — —- I- — I—.

• I

• S

• ..II

• — •• —
# C_2014462EN.01001101.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/11

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. against the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 in Case T-591/11 Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Henkel

(Case C-91/14 P)

(2014/C 462/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. (represented by: M. Konieczyński and I. Kubiec, adwokaci)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Henkel Corp.

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 2 October 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal in its entirety, in part as being inadmissible, and ordered Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/gpo119523 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
§ 556.110 Carbomycin. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerance for carbomycin is: ( 1 ) *Chickens.* Edible tissues (excluding eggs): Zero.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 520.1664 of this chapter.
[84 FR 32993, July 11, 2019, as amended at 88 FR 55567, Aug. 16, 2023]
DOT- 05T- ZOOO- <cr^%% 

OrpARTWENTOF 

M-^N3P0RTATI0 N 

June 15,2011 •••:-;KrT OPERATIONS 

Dennis DeVany ?'])} M !b A iQ: 0 1 

Essential Air Service Chief US DOT 

EAS and Domestic Analysis Div. 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

W86-471 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Docket DOT-OST-2011-4-7- Essential Air ScA'ice Opening For Kalaupapa, Island of 

Molokai, Hawaii 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Essential Air Service (EAS) Request for 

Proposal (RFP) opening for Kalaup^a, Molokai Island, Hawaii, Docket DOT-OST-2011-4-7. 

Kalaupapa is a remote, rural location that can only be accessed by airplane or a 2000 foot high, 

26 3v»itch-back foot trail. The Kalaupapa patient population ranges in age from 69 to 87 and 

many residents arc unable to easily use the trail. Therefore, air service is critical to the 

movement of people to and from the Settlement. 

All Kalaupapa residents and visitors to here want lower air fares similar to the average for other 

airfares to and fiom the rest of Molokai" Island. Kalaupapa residents want and need 7 day a week 

service, especially to topside Molokai on Friday afternoon and back to Kalaupapa Sunday 

afternoon to accommodate workers and weekend tourists. 

The selected provider should have a schedule that permits residents to go out in the morning and 

return in the late afternoon for medical appointments and shopping, plus a mid-day flight to 

Honolulu to accommodate the visitor and business traffic. 

Se^^^ce from a provider that has a positive safety record in Hawaii, is financially stable, able to 

provide EAS service for the 2-year contract period, and a track record operating scheduled 

commercial services with positive on-tinae service records in Hawaii is also desirable. 

The chosen provider should also provide other necessities, like wheel chair accessible equipment 

and aircraft that can easily accommodate wheelchair restricted passengers. 

Finally, the provider should have aircraft capable of operating within the airport restrictions (9 

passenger maximum) with enough equipment to keep reliable and on-time service operating 

during all seasons of the year. 

The current provider, Pacific Wings, does provide consistent, on time service to schedule, but 

their fares have worked contrary to the reasons for EAS. In the past three years since they raised 

rates over 250%, the total load carried has dwindled firom over 3,000 annually to as low as 

aroxmd 900 this past year. 

e*cl xdj iaraasdi dH wdio^oi iios si unp 
In addition, assertions have been made that fares are unimportant to patients since the 

Department of Health pays for their air travel. Patients are given medical costs for travel, but all 

travel done on personal business, all their family and friends travel and all the tourists that come 

into the settlement by commercial carrier to interact with the community all pay the high fare 

now charged. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the EAS RFP for Kalaupapa. 

Sincerely,^ 

Mark Miller 

As Private Citizen of Kalaupapa 

ir- d x d j j.3ra3Sd"i dH Wdio:o i iio a s i unr
#### In re STAUB et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 19, 1914.)

In the matter of the claim of Arcangela Staub and another, etc.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs.
§ 522.960c Flumethasone solution. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains 0.5 milligrams (mg) of flumethasone.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 054771 and 061133 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use.* It is used as follows: ( 1 ) *Horses* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer 1.25 to 2.5 milligrams (mg) daily by intravenous, intramuscular, or intra-articular injection.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For use in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions due to inflammation, where permanent structural changes do not exist, e.g., bursitis, carpitis, osselets, and myositis; and allergic states, e.g., hives, urticaria, and insect bites.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Not for use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Dogs* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer 0.0625 to 0.25 mg daily by intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous injection; 0.125 to 1.0 mg daily by intra-lesional injection, depending on the size and location of the lesion; or 0.166 to 1.0 mg daily by intra-articular injection, depending on the severity of the condition and the size of the involved joint.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For use in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions due to inflammation of muscles or joints and accessory structures where permanent structural changes do not exist, e.g., arthritis, osteoarthritis, disc syndrome, and myositis (in septic arthritis, appropriate antibacterial therapy should be concurrently administered); certain acute and chronic dermatoses of varying etiology to help control associated pruritus, irritation, and inflammation; otitis externa in conjunction with topical medication; allergic states, e.g., hives, urticaria, and insect bites; and shock and shock-like states by intravenous administration.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 3 ) *Cats* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer 0.03125 to 0.125 mg daily by intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous injection.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For use in the treatment of certain acute and chronic dermatoses of varying etiology to help control associated pruritus, irritation, and inflammation.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 16188, Mar. 25, 2014, as amended at 88 FR 55564, Aug. 16, 2023]
<PAGE>

                      ACCESS SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                                650 TENROD ROAD
                           NORTH KINGSTOWN, RI 02852



January 31, 1997




PaperClip Software, Inc.
Three University Plaza
Hackensack, NJ   07601
Attn: William Weiss,
      Chief Executive Officer
     
      Re: Letter of Intent dated January 2, 1997 ("Letter of Intent")
          -----------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill:

      This letter confirms our mutual agreement that each time the "January 31,
1997" date appears in Paragraph 9 of the Letter of Intent, such date shall be
replaced with "February 28, 1997."

      Please acknowledge your agreement by executing this letter where
indicated below.

Very truly yours,

ACCESS SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.


By: /s/ Robert H. Stone
   ----------------------------------
   Robert H. Stone, President and CEO


AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

PAPERCLIP SOFTWARE, INC.


By: /s/ William Weiss
   ----------------------------------
   William Weiss, CEO
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****USGS research on mineral resources:program and abstracts
** 
**Energy Resources:**1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1996** 
SuDoc Number:
Item Number:
CGP systemNumber:
 
September 27, 2018******
Chevron Pascagoula Refinery Design Loading Rates for MTVLO
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131452 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131452 

 COA: 265810

 Genesee CC: 02-074467-AR

 67th DC: FY002-CO659 

BRANDON NATHANIEL MARTINEZ, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 21, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0821 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

August 29, 2006 

 Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00186-CR

Asael Furquim Dearruda, Jr. a/k/a 

Asael F. Dearruda a/k/a Asael 

Arruda

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR12024)

April 11, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By_________________________________

 Justice Lee Gabriel
Exhibit 13





Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Ellomay Capital Ltd. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





A)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





B)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Ran Fridrich_________________
Ran Fridrich

Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Kalia Weintraub______________

Kalia Weintraub

Chief Financial Officer




Date: March 25, 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

OMAR RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 133 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# L_2019077EN.01007301.xml

| 20.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 77/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 77/73

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2019/447

of 15 March 2019

appointing an alternate member, proposed by the Italian Republic, of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

| (2) | An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Giorgio SILLI, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Giorgio SILLI,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:

| — | Mr Alessio MARSILI, Consigliere del Municipio XIII di Roma Capitale. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Alessio MARSILI, Consigliere del Municipio XIII di Roma Capitale.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 15 March 2019.

For the Council

The President

M.C. BUDĂI

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

2

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

3

---
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

To Board of Directors
Front Range Capital Corporation

         We consent to the use in the Form 10-QSB of Front Range Capital
Corporation for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 our report dated May
6, 2003 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Front Range Capital
Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2003 and the related consolidated
statements of income, comprehensive income and cash flows for the three-month
period then ended.

                                      /s/ Fortner, Bayens, Levkulich & Co., P.C.
Denver, Colorado
May 13, 2003
#### § 133.158 Low-moisture part-skim mozzarella and scamorza cheese.

Low-moisture part-skim mozzarella cheese and low-moisture part-skim scamorza cheese conform to the definition and standard of identity and comply with the requirements for label declaration of ingredients prescribed for low-moisture mozzarella cheese and low-moisture scamorza cheese by § 133.156, except that their milkfat content, calculated on the solids basis, is less than 45 percent but not less than 30 percent.

[58 FR 2894, Jan. 6, 1993]
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 

### 07838 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 07838\07838_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x 07838\07838_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 07838\07838_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 07838\07838_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 07838\07838_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07838\07838_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07838\07838_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07838\Supporting Documentation\07838_Aerial Map_CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07838\Supporting Documentation\07838_Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7318

In Re: COLIN SEALE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CR-97-663, CA-00-918)

Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 22, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Colin Seale, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Colin Seale petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that

the district court has unduly delayed in acting on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing

the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals

that the district court has now ruled on his § 2255 motion.

Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided

Seale’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant

Seale’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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. 

PETITION DENIED