alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
180905 ORD RE STAY MOT HRG.DOCX VERSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

----------------------------------------------------------x

In re: PROMESA

Title III

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered)

et al.,

Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x

ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING ON URGENT MOTION OF OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF 

UNSECURED CREDITORS FOR ENTRY OF ORDER ENFORCING AUTOMATIC STAY

The Court has received and reviewed the Urgent Motion of Official Committee of 

Unsecured Creditors, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 105(a) and 362, for Entry of Order 

Enforcing Automatic Stay and Court’s June 29, 2017 Order Confirming Application of 

Automatic Stay with Respect to GDB Restructuring (Docket Entry No. 3797, the “Motion”) and 

the responses filed with respect to the Motion.

It is hereby ordered that the Motion will be heard in connection with the omnibus 

hearing scheduled for September 13, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (Atlantic Standard Time) in the abovecaptioned cases (the “Hearing”). Parties, attorneys, members of the press and the general public

are directed to the Court’s Order Regarding Procedures for Attendance, Participation and 

 1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-

LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing 

Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority 

(“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747). 

(Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software 

limitations.)

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3861 Filed:09/05/18 Entered:09/05/18 16:41:29 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
180905 ORD RE STAY MOT HRG.DOCX VERSION SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 2

Observation of September 13-14, 2018, Omnibus Hearing (Docket Entry No. 3860) for 

information regarding participation in and observation of the Hearing.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2018

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3861 Filed:09/05/18 Entered:09/05/18 16:41:29 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
# Official Journal C 226/15 S

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 226 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4815 September 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 226

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4815 September 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 226/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 226/2 | Decisions adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) | 2 |
| 2005/C 226/3 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 5 |
| 2005/C 226/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3972 — TRW Automotive/Dalphi Metal España) (1) | 9 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 226/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 226/2

Decisions adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1)

2

2005/C 226/3

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

5

2005/C 226/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3972 — TRW Automotive/Dalphi Metal España) (1)

9

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 226/5 | D-Schwerin: Operation of scheduled air services — Invitation to tender issued by the Federal Republic of Germany pursuant to Article 4(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 for the operation of scheduled air services between Rostock-Laage and Munich and Rostock-Laage and Cologne/Bonn (1) | 10 |
| 2005/C 226/6 | I-Rome: operation of scheduled air services — Invitation to tender published by Italy pursuant to Article 4(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92, for the operation of scheduled air services between Crotone-Rome-Milan and vice versa | 12 |

III   Notices

Commission

2005/C 226/5

D-Schwerin: Operation of scheduled air services — Invitation to tender issued by the Federal Republic of Germany pursuant to Article 4(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 for the operation of scheduled air services between Rostock-Laage and Munich and Rostock-Laage and Cologne/Bonn (1)

10

2005/C 226/6

I-Rome: operation of scheduled air services — Invitation to tender published by Italy pursuant to Article 4(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92, for the operation of scheduled air services between Crotone-Rome-Milan and vice versa

12

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Editorial Note on Part 221
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 221.500 Transmission of electronic tariffs to subscribers. ( a ) Each filer that files an electronic tariff under this subpart shall make available to any person so requesting, a subscription service meeting the terms of paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) Under the required subscription service, remote access shall be allowed to any subscriber to the on-line tariff database, including access to the justification required by § 221.205. The subscription service shall not preclude the offering of additional services by the filer or its agent.
( c ) The filer at its option may establish a charge for providing the required subscription service to subscribers: Provided that the charge may not exceed a reasonable estimate of the added cost of providing the service.
( d ) Each filer shall provide to any person upon request, a copy of the machine-readable data (raw tariff data) of all daily transactions made to its on-line tariff database. The terms and prices for such value-added service may be set by the filer: Provided that such terms and prices shall be non-discriminatory, *i.e.,* that they shall be substantially equivalent for all similarly-situated persons.
§ 135.351 Recurrent training. ( a ) Each certificate holder must ensure that each crewmember receives recurrent training and is adequately trained and currently proficient for the type aircraft and crewmember position involved.
( b ) Recurrent ground training for crewmembers must include at least the following: ( 1 ) A quiz or other review to determine the crewmember's knowledge of the aircraft and crewmember position involved.
( 2 ) Instruction as necessary in the subjects required for initial ground training by this subpart, as appropriate, including low-altitude windshear training and training on operating during ground icing conditions as prescribed in § 135.341 and described in § 135.345, crew resource management training as prescribed in § 135.330, and emergency training as prescribed in § 135.331.
( c ) Recurrent flight training for pilots must include, at least, flight training in the maneuvers or procedures in this subpart, except that satisfactory completion of the check required by § 135.293 within the preceding 12 calendar months may be substituted for recurrent flight training.
[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-27, 53 FR 37698, Sept. 27, 1988; Amdt. 135-46, 58 FR 69630, Dec. 30, 1993; Amdt. 135-122, 76 FR 3837, Jan. 21, 2011]
daoR n

036 i

031

saB sniksoH

£¤

001 006

Curtis Road

78 

d

S

a

U

oR rednax

No

e

rt

l

h

A

Fork Cro

Crooked Creek Road Heag

o

 Road

ked

Creek

S

ek

outh

Cre

Fork ed Crook

17 Mile Extensive Recreation

Management Area

Alternatives B and D

R26E

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

Map 95A

Wyoming

T

3

N

Location Map

Montana

Billings 

Field 

Office

Map scale 1:45,000

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in April 2014

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection Ü This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau

of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was 

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

T

4

N

87

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Legend

17 Mile ERMA

US Highway 87

Roads

Streams

Bureau of Land Management

State Lands

Private

Public Lands Survey System
§ 27.991 Fuel pumps. Compliance with § 27.955 may not be jeopardized by failure of— ( a ) Any one pump except pumps that are approved and installed as parts of a type certificated engine; or
( b ) Any component required for pump operation except, for engine driven pumps, the engine served by that pump.
[Amdt. 27-23, 53 FR 34213, Sept. 2, 1988]
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION

I, R. David Anderson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of CGI Group Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the issuer 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 issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The issuers other
certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuer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 issuer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 issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 20, 2012



/s/ R. David AndersonR. David AndersonExecutive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
Slip Op. 06-44

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---x : GUANGZHOU MARIA YEE FURNISHINGS, : LTD., et al . : Before: Pogue, Judge Plaintiffs, : : : Court No. 05-00065 v. : : UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, :

**:** AMERICAN FURNITURE : MANUFACTURERS COMMITTEE FOR : FAIR TRADE, et al . : : Defendant-Intervenors. :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---x

JUDGMENT
In Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China , 69 Fed. Reg. 67,313 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 17, 2004) (notice of final determination of sales at less than fair market value and antidumping duty order) and its corresponding “Issues & Decision Memorandum” dated November 4, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) rejected as untimely certain submissions from Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd., Pyla HK Ltd., and Maria Yee Inc. (collectively “Maria Yee”) and, therefore, assessed Maria Yee the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”)-wide cash deposit rate of 198.08%. Maria Yee timely appealed that determination averring that it was improperly denied the separate rate of 6.65%. On December 14, 2005, this court found unlawful Commerce’s assessment of the PRC-wide cash deposit rate, based upon Commerce’s unreasonable reliance on notice to be provided through the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), and remanded the issue to Commerce for reconsideration. Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd. v. United States , 29 CIT __, Slip Op. 2005-158 (2005). Pursuant to that remand order, Commerce issued a remand determination on March 1, 2006, in which it considered Maria Yee’s evidence. Commerce determined that Maria Yee did qualify for separate-rate treatment, in accordance with the court’s decision, and specifically was qualified for the 6.65% separaterate. This court, having received and reviewed Commerce’s Remand Results, comments and rebuttals thereto, finds that Commerce duly complied with the court’s remand order. Therefore, it is hereby

**ORDERED** that the Department of Commerce’s remand determination is supported by substantial evidence, and otherwise in accordance with law; and it is further

**ORDERED** that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on March 1, 2006 are affirmed in their entirety.

/s/ Donald C. Pogue, Judge Dated: April 5, 2006 New York, New York
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

Ju ne 25 , 2013.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 13
- 00495
- CV

IN RE ROBERT PRIMO , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 133rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012
- 68391
MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 10, 2013, relator filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Jaclanel McFarland , presiding judge of the 133rd District Court of Harris County to vacate two orders. The first order, signed May 22, 2013 , granted the motion for “death penalty” sanctions filed by real party in interest, Scott Rothenberg. The second order, signed2

May 13, 2013 , granted Rothenberg’s motion for no

- evidence partial summary judgment. On June 12, 2013, relator filed a first amended petition for writ of mandamus containing a corrected verification. On June 19, 2013, relator filed a second amended petition for writ of mandamus.
T he petition filed on June 19, 2013, complains of the same two orders as well as three additional orders . It was therefore filed in this court as 14

- 13

- 00 532

- CV and renders the petitions filed in 14

- 13

- 00495

- CV moot. Accordingly , the petition for writ of mandamus filed June 10, 2013 and the first amended petition filed June 12, 2013, are ordered dismissed as moot. 1

PER CURI AM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Busby.

1 The record in 14

- 13

- 00495

- CV has been transferred to 14

- 13

- 00532

- CV.
§ 13.113 Noncompliance with the investigative process. ( a ) If a person disobeys a subpoena, the Administrator or a party to the investigation may petition a court of the United States to enforce the subpoena in accordance with applicable statutes.
( b ) If a party to the investigation fails to comply with the provisions of this subpart or an order issued by the presiding officer, the Administrator may bring a civil action to enforce the requirements of this subpart or any order issued under this subpart in a court of the United States in accordance with applicable statutes.
#### § 189.5 Limitation of liability.

The United States is not liable for any omission, error, or delay in transmitting or relaying, or for any failure to transmit or relay, any message accepted for transmission or relayed under this part, even if the omission, error, delay, or failure to transmit or relay is caused by the negligence of an employee of the United States.
Sanitized – Attachment 004
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 25, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-12205

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00083-CR-FTM-29-SPC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JOSEPH MADDOX, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

 (May 25, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Joseph Maddox appeals his conviction for possession with intent to

distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The

sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred when it denied Maddox’s

request to enter a conditional plea of guilt. 

The district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Quinones, 97 F.3d

473, 475 (11th Cir. 1996) (stating where a defendant fails to object to plea

proceedings, we review the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 for plain error

in order to prevent manifest injustice). With the consent of the court and the

government, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilt by reserving in

writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a

specified pretrial motion with consent of the court and the government. Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11(a)(2). A defendant must strictly comply with Rule 11’s conditional

plea requirements. See United States v. Pierre, 120 F.3d 1153, 1155-56 (11th Cir.

1997). The record shows that Maddox did not comply with Rule 11's requirements

that a conditional plea be reserved in writing and with the consent of the court and

Government. Additionally, neither this Court nor the Supreme Court have

addressed the discretion of the district court to refuse conditional guilty pleas. 

United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding

where neither precedent nor the explicit language of the rule specifically resolves
3

an issue, plain error cannot exist). Therefore, the court’s refusal to accept

Maddox’s conditional plea was not plain error.

AFFIRMED.
1 

### Werner, Christopher

From: Werner, Christopher Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 3:13 PM To: 'Szabo, Aaron' Cc: Lorang, Phil Subject: RE: Near-final version of regional haze rule NPRM Attachments: 03_14_2016 RH NPRM with OMB changes RLSO to preambl e and line edits.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Categories: Regional Haze

Aaron, attached please find “near-final” NPRM. Agai n, there will be changes made by our regulatory spe cialist, but they are likely to be formatting only.

Chris Werner US EPA – Office of Air Quality Planning and Standar ds Air Quality Policy Division (919) 541-5133 werner.christopher@epa.gov

From: Szabo, Aaron [mailto:Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 3:06 PM To: Werner, Christopher <Werner.Christopher@epa.gov> Cc: Lorang, Phil <Lorang.Phil@epa.gov> Subject: RE: Near-final version of regional haze rule NPRM

Chris,

Please send the “near-final” document now to help f acilitate interagency review. Thank you very much.

From: Werner, Christopher [ mailto:Werner.Christopher@epa.gov ] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:17 PM To: Szabo, Aaron < Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov > Cc: Lorang, Phil < Lorang.Phil@epa.gov > Subject: Near-final version of regional haze rule NPRM

Hi Aaron,

We’ve produced a version of the NPRM incorporating all changes discussed thus far during interagency r eview, and that also includes the changes outlined in the document sent to you Friday (which we assume is being review ed by the other agencies now). The only other changes needed to the NPRM on our end are for our regulatory specialist to review it for formatting and related issues.

Would it be helpful to you to have this “near-final ” document now?

Chris Werner US EPA – Office of Air Quality Planning and Standar ds2 Air Quality Policy Division (919) 541-5133 werner.christopher@epa.gov
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

__ 2011

________ - NM -

___ 183

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant ? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)