alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED: May 5, 2014
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF DENNIS MCGLYNN FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0615

ORDER OF DISMISSAL OnMay 2, 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") requested that its Complaintbe withdrawn. 14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a complaint orparty may withdraw a request for a hearing withoutthe consentofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdrawsthe complaint or aparty withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings underthis subpart with prejudice." WHEREFORE, the within filed Request to Withdraw Complaint having been read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Complainant's Request to Withdraw Complaint be and is hereby granted; and 2. This proceedingbe and is hereby dismissed withprejudice.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge
Attachment

- Service List-I

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-· Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Christopher Merrill, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office oftheRegional Counsel, AWP-7.3 Western-Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P. 0. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7105 FAX: 310-725-6816 Dennis J. McGlynn, Respondent
· 659 Dorothy Way

Auburn, CA 95603-3862 ·The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings,M-20 · U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0615 (Civil Penalty**A~tion)**

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
#### Royce Wayne ASHLEY v. Sheila Pope ASHLEY.

No. 52171.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 1, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 29, 1980.

Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphia, Roy Pitts, Meridian, for appellant.

William E. Ready, George Ready, Meridian, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lauderdale County; William Neville, Chancellor.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, P. J., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and COFER, JJ., concur.

PATTERSON, C. J., took no part.
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.102 Compensation of owners. ( a ) *Principle.* A reasonable allowance of compensation for services of owners is an allowable cost provided that the services are actually performed in a necessary function.
( b ) *Definitions* — ( 1 ) *Compensation.* Compensation means the total benefit received by the owner for the services he furnishes to the institution. It includes the following items: ( i ) Salary amounts paid for managerial, administrative, professional, and other services.
( ii ) Amounts paid by the institution for the personal benefit of the proprietor.
( iii ) The cost of assets and services that the proprietor receives from the institution.
( iv ) Deferred compensation.
( 2 ) *Reasonableness.* Reasonableness requires that the compensation allowance— ( i ) Be such an amount as would ordinarily be paid for comparable services by comparable institutions; and
( ii ) Depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
( 3 ) *Necessary.* Necessary requires that the function be— ( i ) Such that had the owner not furnished the services, the institution would have had to employ another person to perform the services; and
( ii ) Pertinent to the operation and sound conduct of the institution.
( c ) *Application.* ( 1 ) Owners of provider organizations often furnish services as managers, administrators, or in other capacities. In such cases, it is equitable that reasonable compensation for the services furnished to be an allowable cost. To do otherwise would disadvantage such owners in comparison with corporate providers or providers employing persons to perform similar services.
( 2 ) Ordinarily, compensation paid to proprietors is a distribution of profits. However, if a proprietor furnishes necessary services for the institution, the institution is in effect employing his services, and a reasonable compensation for these services is an allowable cost. In corporate providers, the salaries of owners who are also employees are subject to the same requirements of reasonableness. If the services are furnished on less than a full-time basis, the allowable compensation should reflect an amount proportionate to a full-time basis. Reasonableness of compensation may be determined by reference to, or in comparison with, compensation paid for comparable services and responsibilities in comparable institutions; or it may be determined by other appropriate means.
# C_2005270EN.01000501.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/5

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3975 — Cargill/DFI)

(2005/C 270/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 21 October 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Cargill Inc. (‘Cargill’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertakings Degussa Food Ingredients GmbH and Maxens GmbH (altogether ‘DFI’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 21 October 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Cargill Inc. (‘Cargill’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertakings Degussa Food Ingredients GmbH and Maxens GmbH (altogether ‘DFI’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Cargill: Animal feed, food and food ingredients, pharmaceuticals, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Cargill: Animal feed, food and food ingredients, pharmaceuticals,

| — | for DFI: Food ingredients. |
| --- | --- |

—

for DFI: Food ingredients.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3975 — Cargill/DFI, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| BE-1049 Brussels |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3975 — Cargill/DFI, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

BE-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Order entered May 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01371-CV

KEITH WAGONER AND DARRON T. WILSON, Appellants

V.

DALLAS TEXAS, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. TX-13-31197

ORDER

Appellant Darron Wilson, who is appearing pro se, filed his brief on March 13, 2015. 

The brief, however, did not comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

38.1, and by order dated March 18, 2015, we directed Wilson to file an amended brief complying 

with the rule no later than April 1, 2015. On Wilson’s motion, we subsequently extended the 

deadline to May 6, 2015. Wilson has now filed a motion for appointment of counsel, stating he

does not have “the knowledge, the legal education, or practice at law to bring the brief . . . up to 

standard.” This Court does not appoint counsel. Accordingly, we take no action on the motion. 

On our own motion, we VACATE our March 18, 2015 order. The appeal shall be submitted on 

Wilson’s March 13th brief. We ORDER appellees to file their brief(s) no later than June 12, 

2015. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
# EXHIBIT
32.1

# CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

# 18
U.S.C. §1350,

# AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Cognigen Networks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Thomas S. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|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.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/
Thomas S. SmithThomas S. SmithPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDated: September
7, 2005
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21473]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Office of Thrift Supervision


 Bradford Bank: Baltimore, MD; Notice of Appointment of Receiver

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
section 5(d)(2) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, the Office of Thrift 
Supervision (OTS) has duly appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation as sole Receiver for Bradford Bank, Baltimore, Maryland 
(OTS No. 01348), on August 28, 2009.

    Dated: September 1, 2009.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Sandra E. Evans,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9-21473 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
# C_2006074EN.01000202.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden by order of that court of 2 December 2005 in Investrand B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-435/05)

(2006/C 74/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 2 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Investrand B.V. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following question:

| | In the context of the right of deduction granted in Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive (1), must it be held that there is a direct and immediate link between specific services obtained by a taxable person and taxable transactions yet to be performed by that same taxable person in a case where those services have been obtained with a view to establishing a monetary claim that forms part of his assets but which arose in a period preceding that in which he was liable for VAT? |
| --- | --- |

In the context of the right of deduction granted in Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive (1), must it be held that there is a direct and immediate link between specific services obtained by a taxable person and taxable transactions yet to be performed by that same taxable person in a case where those services have been obtained with a view to establishing a monetary claim that forms part of his assets but which arose in a period preceding that in which he was liable for VAT?

1

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment OJ 1977 L 145, p. l

1

---
# C_2005296EN.01003501.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/35

---

Action brought on 23 September 2005 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-369/05)

(2005/C 296/72)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant(s): Kingdom of Spain (represented by: D. Fernando Diez Moreno)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision of 15 July 2005 (2005/555/2685) in so far as it refers to the financial corrections made in respect of Spain in relation to the conversion and restructuring of vineyards and the measures for the improvement of the production and marketing of honey; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision of 15 July 2005 (2005/555/2685) in so far as it refers to the financial corrections made in respect of Spain in relation to the conversion and restructuring of vineyards and the measures for the improvement of the production and marketing of honey; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the Commission Decision of 15 July 2005 (2005/555/EC) excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF. Among the exclusions contained in that decision are financial corrections which affect the Kingdom of Spain and apply to the fruit and vegetable sector, the milk sector, public storage, wine and tobacco, animal premiums and the honey sector.

This action refers exclusively to the correction of the amounts paid by way of compensation for loss of income in the wine sector (EUR 4 790 799,61) and the correction made for the inclusion of VAT in the EAGGF financing in the honey sector (EUR 58 315,34). The applicant takes the view that the Commission bases its arguments on a restrictive interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (1). The Kingdom of Spain also challenges the VAT rules on the improvement of the production and marketing of honey.

1

The Spanish authorities take the view that:

| — | the loss of income is connected not to grubbing up, but to the very act of planting; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the loss of income is connected not to grubbing up, but to the very act of planting; and

| — | the Commission's argument that VAT cannot be regarded as an intervention intended to stabilise the markets, since it cannot be financed by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, has no legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission's argument that VAT cannot be regarded as an intervention intended to stabilise the markets, since it cannot be financed by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, has no legal basis.

---

(1)  OJ L 179 of 14.7.1999, p. 1.

1

---
§ 35.43 Delivery only upon filing claim; forms; procedure. ( a ) Delivery of the money and effects of a deceased patient shall be made only to a person who has filed a claim therefor on a form prescribed by the Surgeon General.
( b ) A claimant shall furnish, in addition to the information on the prescribed form, such additional information as the officer in charge may consider necessary to establish the identity of the claimant and the truth of his statements.
( c ) A person filing a claim as a legal representative shall be required to present letters of administration or a certificate of a court attesting his qualification or appointment.
( d ) If a claim is made after the money, or proceeds from the sale of the effects, of a deceased patient have been deposited in the Treasury, the claim shall be referred to the General Accounting Office. If the claim is for checks or evidences of indebtedness of the United States which have been trasnsmitted to the issuing agency pursuant to §§ 35.47 and 35.48, the claimant shall be referred to such agency.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Craig S. COCO.

No. 67688.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 23, 1980.

In re Craig S. Coco, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. Parish of Jefferson. No. 78-2435.

Denied.

DIXON, C. J., would grant the writ.
# C_2006060EN.01003305.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-159/05 (1)

1

(2006/C 60/71)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 8 December 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-159/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

---

(1)  OJ C 132, 28. 05. 2005.

1

---
# C_2005330EN.01001101.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/11

---

Action brought on 27 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-390/05)

(2005/C 330/21)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker, legal adviser and M. Konstantinidis, of the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5), (6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5), (6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer;

1

| 2. | Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant considers that the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer because it did not take the measures necessary for determining minimum qualification requirements for the personnel charged with the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer.

The applicant likewise considers that the Hellenic Republic infringed its obligations under Article 16(6) of Regulation No 2037/2000 given that the Hellenic Republic did not submit a report to the Commission in accordance with the requirements of that provision, concerning the facilities available and the quantities of used controlled substances recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed.

Finally, the applicant alleges an infringement by the Hellenic Republic of Article 17(1) of the abovementioned regulation because it did not adopt, as provided for thereunder, all practicable measures to arrange for annual checks of leakages from fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg.

---

(1)  OJ L 244 of 29.09.2000, p. 1

1

---
HomeWhat We Do...DS Training

# 									DS Training							

Bureau of Diplomatic Security

The Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) develops and implements specialized security training programs for State Department personnel and other U.S. federal agencies and provides security and law enforcement training programs to certain foreign government security and law enforcement personnel.

## Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC)

The Foreign Affairs Security Training Center’s (FASTC) mission is to train and sustain a workforce capable of effectively addressing and overcoming the law enforcement and security challenges required to support U.S. foreign policy in the global threat environment now and into the future.

[Read More]

----

## Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA)

The Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) program provides U.S. government antiterrorism training and equipment to law enforcement agencies of partner nations throughout the world.

Read More

----

## Special Program for Embassy Augmentation Response (SPEAR)

The Special Program for Embassy Augmentation and Response (SPEAR) enhances the security at U.S. embassies and consulates in high-threat locations by training host-nation law enforcement and security personnel to better respond to emergencies at U.S. embassies and consulates.

Read More

----

## Mobile Security Deployments (MSD) Teams

Mobile Security Deployment (MSD) teams are the U.S. Department of State’s 24- hour, on-call, tactical response elements.

Read More

----

## Technical Security Engineering (TSE)

Through its Office of Technical Security Engineering (TSE), DSS provides technical security training for U.S. Department of State security professionals.

Read More

Back to Top
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Southside Bancshares Corp.:

         We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (No. 33-78454 and No. 333-00579) of Southside Bancshares Corp. of
our report dated February 25, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of Southside Bancshares Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996,
and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K
of Southside Bancshares Corp.

                            /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 26, 1998