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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 647

To prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense

from being used for the deployment of United States Armed Forces

in Kosovo unless that deployment is specifically authorized by law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 9, 1999

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr.

HOSTETTLER, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. SCARBOROUGH,

Mr. SALMON, Mrs. CUBIN, and Mr. METCALF) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Department

of Defense from being used for the deployment of United

States Armed Forces in Kosovo unless that deployment

is specifically authorized by law.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF USE ON DEPARTMENT OF DE4 FENSE FUNDS FOR DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED

5 STATES ARMED FORCES IN KOSOVO.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—None of the funds appropriated

7 or otherwise available to the Department of Defense may
2

•HR 647 IH

1 be obligated or expended for the deployment of United

2 States Armed Forces in Kosovo.

3 (b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition against the deploy4 ment of United States Armed Forces in Kosovo in sub5 section (a) shall not apply if such deployment is specifi6 cally authorized by a law enacted after the date of the

7 enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### § 301-10.304 What expenses are allowable in addition to the POV mileage rate allowances?

Following is a chart listing the reimbursable and non-reimbursable expenses:

| Reimbursable expenses in addition to mileage allowance | Non-reimbursable expenses included in the mileage allowance |
| --- | --- |
| Parking fees; ferry fees; bridge, road, and tunnel fees; and aircraft or airplane parking, landing, and tie-down fees | Charges for repairs, depreciation, replacements, grease, oil, antifreeze, towage and similar speculative expenses, fuel, insurance, state and Federal taxes. |

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15955, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57965, Sept. 13, 2002; 87 FR 24065, Apr. 22, 2022]
The Partners
DUKE-WEEKS REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:



We  consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statements No. 333-26845-01, No. 333-49911-01, and  No.  333-
04695-01  on  Form S-3 of Duke-Weeks Realty  Corporation  and
Duke-Weeks  Realty Limited Partnership of  our  report  dated
January 25, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of  Duke-Weeks Realty Limited Partnership and Subsidiaries as
of  December  31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements  of operations, partners' equity, and  cash  flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31,  1999, and the related schedule, which report appears  in
the  December  31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K  of  Duke-
Weeks Realty Limited Partnership.




KPMG LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
March 27, 2000
Exhibit 10.1


 





Early Termination Agreement


 


Date: January
25th, 2017


 


Party A:
Prime World International Holdings Ltd., Taiwan Branch


 


Party B: Chailease Finance Co., Ltd.


 


Party A and Party B
has entered into a ”Financing Lease Contract”, No. [***] (hereinafter referred to as “Contract”).
Upon thorough discussion, both parties hereby agree to terminate Contract before expiration (hereinafter referred to as “Early
Termination”) pursuant to terms and conditions below:


 


		Article 1	The duration of the Contract is from June 30th,
2015 to June 30th, 2018. Both parties agree to terminate the Contract on January 13th, 2017 due to the organization
restructuring and business change of Party A. All other effective contract documents between both parties shall in no event be
affected or impaired. Any new business plan or cooperation demand in the future shall be negotiated amicably by both parties,
if any.



 


		Article 2	After confirming the settlement mutually and through thorough
negotiation, both parties agree that Party A shall pay off New Taiwan Dollars 37,502,124 for Early Termination, including the
undue rent, liquidated damages and any and all costs and expenses arising from Early Termination.






 


		Article 3	Party B agrees to transfer and Party A shall obtain the
title to the lease object under Contract as of the date Party A has paid off the amount pursuant to Article 2.



 


		Article 4	This agreement is made in duplicate, with Party A and Party
B holding one respectively. Any amendments to this agreement shall be valid only with written consent mutually signed by both
parties.



 


Party
A: Prime World International Holdings Ltd., Taiwan Branch


Representative: Shu-Hua (Joshua) Yeh


Address: No.18,Gong 4th Rd., Linkou District,
New Taipei City, Taiwan


 


Party B: Chailease Finance Co., Ltd.


Representative: Chen, Fenglong


Address: 8F-12F, No. 362 Ruiguang Road,
Neihu District, Taipei, Taiwan
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 661 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                  Union Calendar No. 20
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 661

                          [Report No. 106-35]

 To direct the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit the commercial 
operation of supersonic transport category aircraft that do not comply 
with stage 3 noise levels if the European Union adopts certain aircraft 
                           noise regulations.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1999

 Mr. Oberstar (for himself, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Duncan, and 
  Mr. Horn) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                             March 2, 1999

   Additional sponsors: Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Shows, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. 
                       Metcalf, and Mr. Gejdenson

                             March 2, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
 To direct the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit the commercial 
operation of supersonic transport category aircraft that do not comply 
with stage 3 noise levels if the European Union adopts certain aircraft 
                           noise regulations.

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

SECTION 1. COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT CATEGORY 
              AIRCRAFT.

    If the European Union adopts Common Position (EC) No. 66/98 as a 
final regulation or adopts any similar final regulation, the Secretary 
of Transportation shall prohibit, after such date of adoption, the 
commercial operation of a civil supersonic transport category aircraft 
to or from an airport in the United States unless the Secretary finds 
that the aircraft complies with stage 3 noise levels.
                                     





                                                  Union Calendar No. 20

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 661

                          [Report No. 106-35]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To direct the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit the commercial 
operation of supersonic transport category aircraft that do not comply 
with stage 3 noise levels if the European Union adopts certain aircraft 
                           noise regulations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 2, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed.`
Exhibit 13.2  Certificate of the Principal Executive Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection
with the annual report of Quebecor World Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeremy Roberts, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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/
  Jeremy RobertsJeremy
  RobertsChief
  Financial OfficerDated:
  March 27, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 760 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 760

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
                            research credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 1999

Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
                            research credit.

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

SECTION 1. RESEARCH CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to credit for increasing research activities) is amended by 
striking subsection (h).
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b) of such 
Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred after June 30, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1592]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force; Notice of Meeting

SUMMARY:  Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a meeting of the 
Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force, established under the 
authority of the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act 
(16 U.S.C. 460ss et seq.). The meeting is open to the public.

DATES:  The Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force (Task Force) will 
meet from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 10, 2000 and 
from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Friday, February 11, 2000.

PLACE:  The meeting will be held at the Brookings Inn, 1143 Chetco 
Avenue, Brookings, Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Ronald A. Iverson, Project Leader, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1006 (1215 South Main), Yreka, 
California 96097-1006, telephone (530) 842-5763.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For background information on the Task 
Force, please refer to the notice of their initial meeting that 
appeared in the Federal Register on July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25639).

Elizabeth H. Stevens,
Acting Manager, California Nevada Operations.
[FR Doc. 00-1592 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Kauffman, Respondent-Appellant, v John M. Dolce, as Public Safety Commissioner of the City of White Plains, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[627 NYS2d 750]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of John M. Dolce dated January 22, 1992, which terminated, without a hearing, the petitioner’s benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a, (1) John M. Dolce and the City of White Plains appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), entered September 24, 1993, which granted the petition and (2) the petitioner cross-appeals from stated portions of the same judgment.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed since the petitioner is not aggrieved by the portions of the judgment that he cross-appeals from *(see,*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner firefighter’s refusal to undergo surgery a second time does not constitute a waiver of the petitioner’s right to benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a. In *Matter of Sche*
      *299
      *nectady Police Benevolent Assn. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.*(85 NY2d 480), the Court of Appeals stated that General Municipal Law § 207-c authorizes a city to require that police officers undergo surgery "under the appropriate circumstances * * * where reasonable” *(see, Matter of Schenectady Police Benevolent Assn. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., supra,*at 486). The Court of Appeals also stated that, in this regard, police officers do not differ from firefighters, who may also be required to undergo surgery pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a. Thus, the Supreme Court properly found that the petitioner’s refusal to undergo surgery a second time was reasonable in light of his previous unsuccessful surgery and steroid treatments and the lack of the likelihood of success of the proposed surgery *(see, Matter of Messina v Speranza,*79 AD2d 807).

We have examined the appellants-respondents’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Thompson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 13.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Celulosa
Arauco y Constitución S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matías Domeyko, Chief Financial
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) 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/ Matías DomeykoMatías DomeykoChief Financial OfficerDated: June 28, 2004




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Celulosa Arauco y Constitución S.A. and will be retained by Celulosa Arauco y Constitución S.A. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPORATION AS OF AND
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         121
<SECURITIES>                                   101
<RECEIVABLES>                                  625
<ALLOWANCES>                                   21
<INVENTORY>                                    272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,170
<PP&E>                                         2,942
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          68,703
<BONDS>                                        232
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8,307
<OTHER-SE>                                     (75,730)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (2,475)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,052
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  713
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (57)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (57)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (57)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.06)
        


</TABLE>
# Comments on: 2017-2502: United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Company
#### § 301-10.132 Who is required to use a U.S. flag air carrier?

Anyone whose air travel is financed by U.S. Government funds, except as provided in § 301-10.135, §§ 301-10.136, and 301-10.137.
#### Frederick CARTER v. STATE

CR-14-0135

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

01/30/2015

Affirmed
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00344

- CR

Luis Carlos MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR6587

Honorable Michael E. Mery , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED June 7, 2023.

___________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice
#### § 102-83.45 What is a Core-Based Statistical Area?

A Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) is a geographic area established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Current CBSAs are listed in OMB Bulletin No. 20-01, “Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas,” dated March 6, 2020, or succeeding OMB Bulletin. In this part, the CBSA designation is used to distinguish between urban and rural areas, which have different directives associated with them.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DAMIAN G. BEY, a/k/a Damien Giovanni Bey, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-00252-BR-1; 5:05-cv-00323)

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 1, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damian G. Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Jude Darrow, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Damian G. Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); see Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bey’s motion for transmittal of records, we deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 11-8369.

#### McCall *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 9th Dist. Certiorari denied.
§ 105-68.870 When do I know if the debarring official debars me? ( a ) The debarring official must make a written decision whether to debar within 45 days of closing the official record. The official record closes upon the debarring official's receipt of final submissions, information and findings of fact, if any. The debarring official may extend that period for good cause.
( b ) The debarring official sends you written notice, pursuant to § 105-68.615 that the official decided, either— ( 1 ) Not to debar you; or
( 2 ) To debar you. In this event, the notice: ( i ) Refers to the Notice of Proposed Debarment;
( ii ) Specifies the reasons for your debarment;
( iii ) States the period of your debarment, including the effective dates; and
( iv ) Advises you that your debarment is effective for covered transactions and contracts that are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1), throughout the executive branch of the Federal Government unless an agency head or an authorized designee grants an exception.
§ 105-68.625 What is the scope of a suspension or debarment? If you are suspended or debarred, the suspension or debarment is effective as follows: ( a ) Your suspension or debarment constitutes suspension or debarment of all of your divisions and other organizational elements from all covered transactions, unless the suspension or debarment decision is limited— ( 1 ) By its terms to one or more specifically identified individuals, divisions, or other organizational elements; or
( 2 ) To specific types of transactions.
( b ) Any affiliate of a participant may be included in a suspension or debarment action if the suspending or debarring official— ( 1 ) Officially names the affiliate in the notice; and
( 2 ) Gives the affiliate an opportunity to contest the action.