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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3538 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3538

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 201 South Chicago Avenue in Saint Anne, Illinois, as the ``Marine 
              Capt. Ryan Beaupre Saint Anne Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 19, 2003

    Mr. Weller (for himself, Mr. Rush, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. 
Lipinski, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Davis of Illinois, 
 Mr. Crane, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Costello, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. 
Hastert, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Evans, Mr. LaHood, 
 and Mr. Shimkus) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 201 South Chicago Avenue in Saint Anne, Illinois, as the ``Marine 
              Capt. Ryan Beaupre Saint Anne Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MARINE CAPT. RYAN BEAUPRE SAINT ANNE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 201 South Chicago Avenue in Saint Anne, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Marine Capt. Ryan Beaupre Saint Anne Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Marine Capt. 
Ryan Beaupre Saint Anne Post Office.
                                 <all>
```
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Open-File Report 2006-1260-A

**Prepared in Cooperation with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the State Geologist and Executive Office of Environmental Affairs**

# Surficial Geologic Map of the Clinton-Concord-Grafton-Medfield 12-Quadrangle Area in East Central Massachusetts

**Compiled by Janet R. Stone and Byron D. Stone**

| Surficial Geologic Map (1:50,000 scale, 48x36 inches) [28-MB PDF] |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
# C_2017189EN.01004901.xml

| 15.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/49

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 November 2016

in Case E-4/16

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Article 33 SCA — Measures necessary to comply with a judgment of the Court)

(Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Article 33 SCA — Measures necessary to comply with a judgment of the Court)

(2017/C 189/13)

In Case E-4/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing to take, within the time prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 2 December 2013 in Case E-13/13 ESA v Norway, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 16 November 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

ESA

Norway

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing, within the time prescribed, to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 2 December 2013 in Case E-13/13 ESA v Norway. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing, within the time prescribed, to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 2 December 2013 in Case E-13/13 ESA v Norway.

ESA

Norway

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
#### John E. Beggs, Respondent, *v.*Charles L. Eidlitz, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, tenth district, borough of Manhattan.

Ernest F. Eidlitz, for appellant.

Charles E. Francis, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

At the time of the sale of the chattel in question the plaintiff was not the owner thereof, and the facts established upon the trial were, therefore, insufficient to constitute a conversion. It is substantially undisputed that the title to the chattel was not to pass until the purchase price was paid, and the defendant, under the circumstances disclosed, acted clearly within his rights. The merits of this controversy seem to be entirely with the defendant, and the judgment for the plaintiff being without evidence to support it must be reversed.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
<Page>

                            EXHIBIT 11 TO FORM 10-KSB

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE AND COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENTS

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                  Year Ended December 31,
                                                             --------------------------------
                                                                 2001                2000
                                                             -------------       ------------
<S>                                                          <C>                 <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE
Weighted average common shares outstanding ..............       19,049,454         18,877,192
                                                             =============       ============
    Basic loss before extraordinary gain ................    $       (0.02)      $      (0.46)
                                                             =============       ============
    Basic loss per share ................................    $       (0.02)      $      (0.40)
                                                             =============       ============

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
Weighted average common shares outstanding ..............       19,049,454         18,877,192
Shares issuable from assumed conversion of
       Convertible preferred stock ......................               --            259,458
Shares issuable from assumed conversion of
    common share options and warrants ...................        1,017,435            507,459
                                                             -------------       ------------
Weighted average common shares outstanding, as adjusted..       20,066,889         19,644,109
                                                             =============       ============
    Diluted loss before extraordinary gain ..............    $       (0.02)      $      (0.44)
                                                             =============       ============
    Diluted loss per share ..............................    $       (0.02)      $      (0.38)
                                                             =============       ============

EARNINGS FOR BASIC AND DILUTED COMPUTATION
Net loss before extraordinary gain ......................    $    (457,234)      $ (8,660,638)
Extraordinary gain ......................................               --          1,126,034
                                                             -------------       ------------
Net loss to common stockholders (basic and diluted
    earnings per share computation) .....................    $    (457,234)      $ (7,534,604)
                                                             =============       ============
</Table>

This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K; although it is
contrary to paragraphs 13 through 16 of the Financial Accounting Standards
Board's Statement of Financial Standard No. 128, because it produces an
antidilutive result.

                                       55
DENY; and Opinion Filed May 20, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00578-CV

IN RE RODNEY JAMES ROHRICH, M.D., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-15886

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek

Opinion by Justice Schenck

In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to 

vacate a May 2, 2019 show cause order and a March 4, 2019 order compelling production of data 

referenced in an April 2018 article written by relator. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator 

must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate 

appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown an abuse of 

discretion. Further, relator has not presented his arguments to the trial court regarding compliance 

with the order compelling production or regarding objections to the production. He is, therefore, 

not entitled to mandamus relief. In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506, 510 (Tex. 2017) (orig. 

proceeding) (“Due to the extraordinary nature of the remedy, the right to mandamus relief 

generally requires a predicate request for action by the respondent, and the respondent’s erroneous 

refusal to act”). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP.
–2–

P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the 

relief sought).

190578F.P05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
Editorial Note on Part 702
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 702 appear at 84 FR 1606, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 702.204 Prompt corrective action for moderately capitalized, marginally capitalized, or minimally capitalized new credit unions. ( a ) *Mandatory supervisory actions by new credit union.* Beginning on the date of classification as moderately capitalized, marginally capitalized or minimally capitalized (including by reclassification under § 702.202(d)), a new credit union must— ( 1 ) *Earnings retention.* Increase the dollar amount of its net worth by the amount reflected in its approved initial or revised business plan;
( 2 ) *Submit revised business plan.* Submit a revised business plan within the time provided by § 702.206 if the credit union either: ( i ) Has not increased its net worth ratio consistent with its then-present approved business plan;
( ii ) Has no then-present approved business plan; or
( iii ) Has failed to comply with paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and
( 3 ) *Restrict member business loans.* Not increase the total dollar amount of member business loans (defined as loans outstanding and unused commitments to lend) as of the preceding quarter-end unless it is granted an exception under 12 U.S.C. 1757a(b).
( b ) *Discretionary supervisory actions by NCUA.* Subject to the applicable procedures set forth in subpart L of part 747 of this chapter for issuing, reviewing and enforcing directives, the NCUA Board may, by directive, take one or more of the actions prescribed in § 702.109(b) if the credit union's net worth ratio has not increased consistent with its then-present business plan, or the credit union has failed to undertake any mandatory supervisory action prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Discretionary conservatorship or liquidation.* Notwithstanding any other actions required or permitted to be taken under this section, the NCUA Board may place a new credit union which is moderately capitalized, marginally capitalized or minimally capitalized (including by reclassification under § 702.202(d)) into conservatorship pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1786(h)(1)(F), or into liquidation pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1787(a)(3)(A)(i), provided that the credit union has no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately capitalized.
1

Tercero does not challenge the denial of his request for asylum or relief under

the Convention Against Torture.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2264

___________

Roberto Funes Tercero, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Michael B. Mukasey, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 26, 2008

Filed: June 2, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roberto Funes Tercero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an

Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of withholding of removal1

 based on Tercero’s

failure to show that he had suffered past persecution or that it was more likely than not

he would be persecuted if returned to Guatemala. 
-2-

Upon careful review, we conclude that the BIA’s decision is supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Ming Ming Wijono v. Gonzales,

439 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). The IJ gave specific and

convincing reasons for disbelieving Tercero’s testimony regarding past and likely

future persecution on account of his Mayan ethnicity. See Mamana v. Gonzales, 436

F.3d 966, 968-69 (8th Cir. 2006). Further, the then current Country Report on Human

Rights Practices in Guatemala indicated that the Guatemalan government had taken

steps to curb discrimination and to protect the rights of the indigenous population. Cf.

Pascual v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 483, 488 (6th Cir. 2007) (rejecting asylum claim based

on Mayan ethnicity).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________
Exhibit 23.2


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Form S-8 (File  Nos.  33-86024,  33-74016  and  33-86022),  Form S-3 (File  Nos.
333-1078  and  333-12865)  and  Amendment  No.1 to  Registration  Statement  No.
33-93608 on Form S-3, of our report dated  January 3, 1996 (with  respect to the
acquisition of Ribonetics in Note 3[b],  May 22 1996 and to the first  paragraph
of  Note  1[b]  and to the  retroactive  change  of  the  stockholders'  capital
accounts, December 23, 1996) on the consolidated financial statements of Innovir
Laboratories Inc. and subsidiary (the "Company") as of December 31, 1995 and for
the period January 6, 1995 (inception) through December 31, 1995 included in the
Company's 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.




Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP
                                                

New York, New York
May 8, 1998
§ 746.108 Composition of Supervisory Review Committee. ( a ) *Formation and composition of committee pool.* The NCUA Chairman shall select not less than eight members from among senior staff in NCUA's regional and central offices as a Committee pool from which the Committee Chairman may select Committee members. None of the members appointed by the NCUA Chairman shall also serve as a Regional Director, Associate Regional Director, Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director, General Counsel, Director of the Office of Examination and Insurance, or a senior policy advisor or chief of staff to a Board Member.
( b ) *Term of office for members of Committee pool.* Each member of the Committee pool shall serve for a two-year term and may be reappointed by the NCUA Chairman for additional terms.
( c ) *Designation and role of Committee Chairman.* The Secretary of the Board shall serve as permanent Committee Chairman. The Committee Chairman shall be responsible for designating three Committee members (one of whom may be the Committee Chairman) from among the Committee pool to hear a particular appeal.
( d ) *Selection criteria.* When selecting Committee members to hear an appeal pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, the Committee Chairman shall consider any real or apparent conflicts of interest that may impact the objectivity of the Committee member as well as that individual's experience with the subject matter of the appeal.
( e ) *Interested staff ineligible.* Members of the Committee pool from the program office that made the material supervisory determination that is the subject of the appeal are ineligible to serve on the Committee for that appeal. Members of the Committee pool from the Office of Examination and Insurance are ineligible to serve on the Committee for appeals where the insured credit union previously requested review by the Director of the Office of Examination and Insurance pursuant to § 746.106.
( f ) *Role of the Special Counsel.* The Special Counsel to the General Counsel shall serve as a permanent nonvoting member of the Committee to advise on procedural and legal matters.
( g ) *Quorum; meetings.* A quorum of two Committee members (excluding the Special Counsel to the General Counsel) shall be present at each Committee meeting and a majority vote of a quorum is required for an action on an appeal. Meetings of the Committee will not be open to the public.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22501-8 Filed:10/04/22 Entered:10/04/22 17:43:25 Desc:

Exhibit Email to Hermann-Bauer Page 1 of 2
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22501-8 Filed:10/04/22 Entered:10/04/22 17:43:25 Desc:

Exhibit Email to Hermann-Bauer Page 2 of 2
<Page>

EXHIBIT 23.1







INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-95704, No. 33-79960, and No. 333-41639 of Department 56, Inc. and
subsidiaries on Form S-8 of our report dated February 22, 2002 (March 1, 2002 as
to the first paragraph of Legal Proceedings of Note 6) appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Department 56, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended
December 29, 2001.




Deloitte & Touche LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 28, 2002
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6789]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects in the exhibition: “The Origins of El Greco: Icon Painting in Venetian Crete,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Onassis Cultural Center, New York, NY, from on or about November 16, 2009, until on or about February 27, 2010, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, 2200 C Street, NW., Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: October 9, 2009.

Maura M. Pally,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-24952 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3249

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT

To extend the term of the Forest Counties Payments 

Committee.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3249 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TERM OF FOREST COUNTIES 

2 PAYMENTS COMMITTEE. 

3 Effective as of October 11, 2003, section 320(e) of 

4 the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Ap5 propriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106–291; 114 Stat. 

6 994; 16 U.S.C. 500 note), is amended by striking ‘‘three 

7 years after the date of the enactment of this Act’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘on September 30, 2007’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 28, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
LTS Doc#:19824-2 Filed:01/18/22 Entered:01/19/22 15:52:02 Desc:

Envelope Page 1 of 1
#### WALPOLE v. GRIFFIN AND SAPP.

Chancery — settlement by arbitrators — costs.

Where tne parties, by themselves or arbitrators settle the controversy, except costs, the court will not examine the facts to settle the matter of costs.

One can never come into chancery to pray a decree for costs only.

Costs in chancery depend upon the sound discretion of the chancellor, upon all the facts.

In Chancery. The parties had submitted this cause to arbitrators, on whose award they were content a decree should be entered, except for some items of costs, which were reserved for the decision of the court.

*Spangler,*for the complainant.

By the Court.

Costs', in chancery, depend upon the sound discretion of the chancellor, to be exercised upon a consideration of *96the facts and merits of the case. We are unwilling to take the trouble to wade through the facts in this case, to adjust a dispute upon an item of costs, when the parties have submitted to the decision of others their controversy. Such a course would be contrary to the usual course of proceeding in chancery; 2 *John. Ch. R.*318. *Lord Hardwick,*in 2 *Vesey,*223, says one can never come into this court to pray a decree for costs only. In such case, each party is left to pay his own costs.