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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3197 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3197

To provide for the reimbursement of air fare costs incurred by members 
 of the United States Armed Forces for domestic travel while on leave 
  from deployment overseas in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
                      Operation Enduring Freedom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 30, 2003

Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota (for himself, Mr. Ross, Mr. Houghton, and Mr. 
   Simmons) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the reimbursement of air fare costs incurred by members 
 of the United States Armed Forces for domestic travel while on leave 
  from deployment overseas in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
                      Operation Enduring Freedom.

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

SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF DOMESTIC AIR FARE COSTS INCURRED BY MEMBERS 
              OF THE ARMED FORCES WHILE ON LEAVE FROM DEPLOYMENT 
              OVERSEAS IN SUPPORT OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND 
              OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.

    The Secretary of Defense shall reimburse air fare costs incurred by 
members of the United States Armed Forces in connection with travel 
within the United States while such members are on leave from 
deployment overseas in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 
Enduring Freedom.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          66,427
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  308,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    107,538
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               517,497
<PP&E>                                       1,144,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,836,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          164,111
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,345
<OTHER-SE>                                     432,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,836,001
<SALES>                                      1,390,996
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,391,540
<CGS>                                          241,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  972,260
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                121,266
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            121,266
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   121,266
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Edwin M. Felt, Respondent, *v.*Benjamin T. Rhoads, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

William P. Burr, for appellant.

Ernest Hall, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

An examination of the testimony of the plaintiff shows that the defendant acted as agent for the underwriters composing The People’s Fire Lloyds, and that this fact was known to the plaintiff; that the services rendered were for the benefit of these underwriters, and after the rendition thereof plaintiff sent in a bill, which, not being paid, he addressed a letter to the various underwriters, but not including this defendant, in which he asked payment of his bill and also stated that he had been employed to render these services for the People’s Fire Lloyds by Mr. Rhoads (the defendant), its managing agent. It thus appears that the services were rendered for the underwriters composing The People’s Fire Lloyds, and not for this defendant. The verdict is against the weight of evidence and must be set aside and a new trial ordered. In view of this disposition of the appeal we do not think it necessary to pass upon the alleged errors in rulings upon the trial and in the charge.

*795Judgment and order appealed from reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event.

Present: McCarthy and O’Dwybr, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Registrant is a limited partnership which invests in federally tax-exempt
revenue bonds, which financed construction and/or ownership of multi-
family residential properties.  In accordance with indsutry practice, its
balance sheet is unclassified.  For full informaiton, refer to the
accompanying unaudited financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       5,399,390
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  456,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             115,661,802<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 108,844,289<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               115,661,802<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,935,273<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               874,117<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,061,156
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,061,156
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,061,156
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include investment in
revenue bonds of $107,827,228, net deferred expenses of $1,101,275 and
escrowed funds of $877,095.
<F2>Represents partners' capital.
<F3>Liabilities include accounts payable and other liabilities of $1,097,041 
and excess of equity in losses of property-owning investees over investments
therein of $5,720,472.
<F4>Total revenue includes interest income of $6,935,273.
<F5>Other expenses include equity in losses of property-owning investees of
$600,363 and general and administrative expenses of $273,754.
<F6>Represents net income per Assigned Benefit Certificate.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 347.112 Restrictions applicable to foreign organizations that act as futures commission merchants. ( a ) If a bank acquires or retains an equity interest in a foreign organization that acts as a futures commission merchant pursuant to § 347.105(b)(16), the foreign organization may not be a member of an exchange or clearing association that requires members to guarantee or otherwise contract to cover losses suffered by other members unless the: ( 1 ) Foreign organization's liability does not exceed two percent of the bank's Tier 1 capital, or
( 2 ) Bank has obtained the prior approval of the FDIC under § 347.120(d).
( b ) [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 31.1

   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



       I, Scott Kincer, certify that:

       1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Datascension,
Inc.;

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

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

       4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in  Exchange  Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the registrant and have:

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

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

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

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

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

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



                      /s/ SCOTT KINCER
                      ------------------

                      Scott Kincer
                      President and Chief Executive Officer
		      and Principal Accounting Officer

Date: November 13, 2006
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS

ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, George Feldenkreis, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Perry Ellis International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Perry Ellis
International, Inc.



|              |  |                        
|------------- |  | -----------------------
|April 9, 2009
|              | 
|By:           |  | /s/ George Feldenkreis 
|Name:         |  | George Feldenkreis     
|Title:        |  | Chief Executive Officer
# C_2023220EN.01002501.xml

| 22.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/25

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2023/C 220/06)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 8 March 2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 90026 |
| Decision No | 43/23/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| | |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Amendment to the Norwegian CO2 compensation scheme – price floor |
| Legal basis | Amendment to Article 6 of the Regulation on CO2 compensation for the manufacturing industry in Norway for the period 2021-2030 to be adopted by the Ministry of Climate and Environment.
  The Norwegian national budget, annually adopted by the Parliament (Stortinget) |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | 2022: NOK 4,7 billion (estimate)
  Total: NOK 81 billion (estimate) |
| Intensity | Up to 75 % |
| Duration | 1 January 2021 — 31 December 2030 |
| Economic sectors | Sectors and subsectors in Annex I to the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Guidelines on certain State aid measures in the context of the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading post 2021 |
| Name and address of the granting authority | The Norwegian Environment Agency P.O. Box 5672 Torgarden |
| N-7485 Trondheim |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

8 March 2023

Case No

90026

Decision No

43/23/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Amendment to the Norwegian CO2 compensation scheme – price floor

Legal basis

Amendment to Article 6 of the Regulation on CO2 compensation for the manufacturing industry in Norway for the period 2021-2030 to be adopted by the Ministry of Climate and Environment.

The Norwegian national budget, annually adopted by the Parliament (Stortinget)

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

2022: NOK 4,7 billion (estimate)

Total: NOK 81 billion (estimate)

Intensity

Up to 75 %

Duration

1 January 2021 — 31 December 2030

Economic sectors

Sectors and subsectors in Annex I to the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Guidelines on certain State aid measures in the context of the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading post 2021

Name and address of the granting authority

The Norwegian Environment Agency P.O. Box 5672 Torgarden

N-7485 Trondheim

NORWAY

Other information

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.166

                                   DEMAND NOTE

$13,000.00                                                    New York, New York
                                                              June 1, 2000

        FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a
California corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby
unconditionally PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor,
New York, NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may
designate from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of
America and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of Thirteen
Thousand and 00/100, DOLLARS ($13,000.00), together with interest on the unpaid
principal amount of this Demand Note outstanding from time to time from the date
hereof, at a rate per annum equal to the Prime rate of interest plus 3.0%, or
the highest rate permitted by law, whichever shall be less.

        The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

        Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

        Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

        Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

        This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

        All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

        This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.

                                             Wilshire Technologies, Inc.



                                             By: /s/ KATHLEEN E. TERRY
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Name:  Kathleen E. Terry
                                                Title: Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                      Exhibit 23.0

              Independent Accountants' Consent


The Board of Directors
Haven Bancorp, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 333-79740, No. 333-85056 and No. 333-20823) on Form
S-8 of Haven Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 23, 1997,
relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of
Haven Bancorp, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which report is
incorporated by reference in the 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Haven Bancorp, Inc.


                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Jericho, New York
March 28, 1997
§ 308.120 Grounds for termination of insurance. ( a ) *General rule.* The following are grounds for involuntary termination of insurance pursuant to section 8(a) of the FDIA: ( 1 ) An insured depository institution or its directors or trustees have engaged or are engaging in unsafe or unsound practices in conducting the business of such depository institution;
( 2 ) An insured depository institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition such that it should not continue operations as an insured depository institution; or
( 3 ) An insured depository institution or its directors or trustees have violated an applicable law, rule, regulation, order, condition imposed in writing by the FDIC in connection with the granting of any application or other request by the insured depository institution or have violated any written agreement entered into between the insured depository institution and the FDIC.
( b ) *Extraterritorial acts of foreign banks.* An act or practice committed outside the United States by a foreign bank or its directors or trustees which would otherwise be a ground for termination of insured status under this section shall be a ground for termination if the Board of Directors finds: ( 1 ) The act or practice has been, is, or is likely to be a cause of, or carried on in connection with or in furtherance of, an act or practice committed within any state, territory, or possession of the United States or the District of Columbia that, in and of itself, would be an appropriate basis for action by the FDIC; or
( 2 ) The act or practice committed outside the United States, if proven, would adversely affect the insurance risk of the FDIC.
( c ) *Failure of foreign bank to secure removal of personnel.* The failure of a foreign bank to comply with any order of removal or prohibition issued by the Board of Directors or the failure of any person associated with a foreign bank to appear promptly as a party to a proceeding pursuant to section 8(e) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818(e)), shall be a ground for termination of insurance of deposits in any branch of the bank.
42723.

#### PARROTT, by Next Friend v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK et al.

*Jordan and Panneill, JJ., concur.*

Submitted April 4, 1967

Decided May 24, 1967.

*Gilbert & Carter, Fred A. Gilbert,*for appellant.

*Long, Weinberg & Ansley, Charles L. Drew,*for appellees.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

In this workmen’s compensation case, the evidence showed that the employee left the employer’s premises and went to a restaurant approximately seven miles from the premises to have lunch and coffee with several of his co-workers, at a time when he had no employment duties outside the premises. Having remained away from the job for several hours without the permission or consent of the employer, he was killed in an automobile collision which occurred some five miles from the place of employment, as he was returning to work. The award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board denying compensation to claimant was demanded by the evidence. See *Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Westmoreland,*93 Ga. App. 888, 891 (93 SE2d 193); *Gay v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co.,*72 Ga. App. 122, 124 (33 SE2d 109); *Aetna Cas.*&c. *Co. v. Honea,*71 Ga. App. 569, 573 (31 SE2d 421). The superior court did not err in affirming the award.

*Judgment affirmed.*