alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Hanford W. OWENS, trading as A. H. Owens *&*Son.

Crim. No. 24077.

United States District Court D. Maryland.

Dec. 5, 1958.

Leon H. A. Pierson, U. S. Atty., and John G. Underwood, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.

Floyd J. Kintner and William B. Evans, Elkton, Md., for defendant.

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

Each of the fourteen counts in the information charges that on a particular date in 1954 or 1955 “at Perryville, in the State and District of Maryland Han-ford W. Owens trading as A. H. Owens & Son did unlawfully and knowingly deliver certain fresh water fish, to wit, [more than ten] black bass, for transportation from Perryville, in the State and District of Maryland, to Zion Grove, in the State of Pennsylvania, and such transportation was then and there contrary to the laws of the State of Maryland in violation of Section 852, Title 16, United States Code”.

Sec. 852 is part of Chapter 13 (Regulation of Interstate Transportation of Black Bass and Other Game Fish) of Title 16 U.S.C.A. (Conservation). Sec. 852 provides in pertinent part:

> “It shall be unlawful for any person to deliver or knowingly receive for transportation, or knowingly to transport, by any means whatsoever, from any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, to or through any other State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or to or through any foreign country, any black bass or other fish, if (1) such transportation is contrary to the law of the State, Territory, or the District of Columbia from which such black bass or other fish is or is to be transported, or is contrary to other applicable law, or (2) such black bass or other fish has been either caught, killed, taken, sold, purchased, possessed, or transported, at any time contrary to the law of the State, Territory, or the District of Columbia in which it was caught, killed, taken, sold, purchased, or possessed, or from which it was transported or contrary to other applicable law; * * * ”

Chapter 13 applies generally to both live and dead fish, but one section thereof, sec. 855, provides: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the shipment in interstate commerce of *539live fish and eggs for breeding or stocking purposes.”

The evidence in this case shows that the delivery of the bass in Maryland for transportation to Pennsylvania was contrary to the law of Maryland, Ann.Code, 1951 ed., Art. 66C, secs. 212 and 311(b), as the latter section stood in 1954 and 1955, both before and after it was amended by the Act of 1954, ch. 41. However, the government’s evidence also shows without contradiction that the shipment in each case was of live fish for stocking purposes. Sec. 855 excludes such shipments from the crime created by see. 852.

Defendant’s motion for acquittal must be granted. It is so ordered.
Date or report 

1967 

Dec 13 

NINETIETH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION-Began January 10, 1967 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the ditection of FRANCIS R. V ALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Executive Clerk 

Thursday, December 14, 1967 

NOMINATION 

Calendar Mess~ge Name of nommee Office Predecessoc 

No No 

DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

1721 429 John T Curtm, of New US d1stnct Judge for the New pos1t10n 

York " ·estern d1stllci of New (Publw Law 89-

York 372 approved 

Mar 18, 1966). 

85-022-67-No 118 

U S GOV£R.HMENT PRINTING OFFiCE: 1917
Exhibit 15.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-160246, 333-162255, 333-176706,
333-183089, 333-184728, 333-188399 and 333-190242) of CSR plc of our reports dated 4 March 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements of CSR plc, and effectiveness of CSR plcs internal control over financial reporting,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the 52 week period ended 26 December 2014.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Deloitte LLP      
|Deloitte LLP          
|London, United Kingdom
|Date 19 March 2015
# EUR-Lex - 12004V415 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V415

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE VI — THE FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - CHAPTER II — FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - Section 5 — Combating fraud - Article III-415 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0179 - 0179 *

Article III-415

1. The Union and the Member States shall counter fraud and any other illegal activities affecting the Union's financial interests through measures taken in accordance with this Article. These measures shall act as a deterrent and be such as to afford effective protection in the Member States and in all the Union's institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.

2. Member States shall take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the Union's financial interests as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests.

3. Without prejudice to other provisions of the Constitution, the Member States shall coordinate their action aimed at protecting the Union's financial interests against fraud. To this end they shall organise, together with the Commission, close and regular cooperation between the competent authorities.

4. European laws or framework laws shall lay down the necessary measures in the fields of the prevention of and fight against fraud affecting the Union's financial interests with a view to affording effective and equivalent protection in the Member States and in all the Union's institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. They shall be adopted after consultation of the Court of Auditors.

5. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, shall each year submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the measures taken for the implementation of this Article.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 254.5 Assembled land exchanges. ( a ) Whenever the authorized officer determines it to be practicable, an assembled land exchange arrangement may be used to facilitate exchanges and reduce costs.
( b ) The parties to an exchange may agree to such an arrangement where multiple ownership parcels of non-Federal lands are consolidated into a package for the purpose of completing one exchange transaction.
( c ) An assembled land exchange arrangement must be documented in the agreement to initiate an exchange, pursuant to § 254.4 of this subpart.
( d ) Value of the Federal and non-Federal lands involved in an assembled land exchange arrangement shall be estimated pursuant to § 254.9 of this subpart.
[59 FR 10867, Mar. 8, 1994; 59 FR 15501, Apr. 1, 1994]
# The **Supreme Court of South Carolina**

The State, Petitioner,

v.

Archie More Hardin, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018

- 002035

ORDER

The petit ion for rehearing is granted, and w e dispense with further briefing. The attached opinion is substituted for the previous opinion, which is withdrawn.

s/ Donald W. Beatty C.J.

s/ John W. Kittredge J.

s/ Kaye G. Hearn J.

s/ John Cannon Few J.

s/ George C. James, Jr. J.

Columbia, South Carolina February 12, 2020THE STATE OF SOUTH C AROLINA

In The Supreme Court

The State, Petitioner,

v.

Archie More Hardin, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018

- 002035

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Orangeburg County Maité Murphy, Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 27938

Heard January 15, 2020

– Filed January 29, 2020 Withdrawn, Substituted, and Refiled February 19, 2020

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY

GRANTED

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, both of

Co lumbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe Jr., of Orangeburg, for Petitioner.

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek and Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, both of Columbia; and Daniel Carson Boles, of Boles Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.PER CURIAM: We issued a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals'

decision in State v. Hardin , 425 S.C. 1, 819 S.E.2d 177 (Ct. App. 2018). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 193 (Thursday, October 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58819-58824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8505]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 06-65]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------N
otice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 06-65 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification. Sensitivity of Technology, and Section 484 of the FAA.

    Dated: September 28, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 58820]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC06.013


[[Page 58821]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC06.014


[[Page 58822]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC06.015


[[Page 58823]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC06.016


[[Page 58824]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC06.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC06.018

[FR Doc. 06-8505 Filed 10-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 586 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 586

To modify the limitation on military-to-military exchanges and contacts 
 with the People's Liberation Army to cover all logistical operations 
    and remove the exception for search-and-rescue and humanitarian 
                       operations and exercises.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 1, 2023

   Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Braun, Mr. 
 Hawley, Mr. Scott of Florida, and Mr. Cruz) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify the limitation on military-to-military exchanges and contacts 
 with the People's Liberation Army to cover all logistical operations 
    and remove the exception for search-and-rescue and humanitarian 
                       operations and exercises.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No People's Liberation Army in 
Logistical Operations and Other Pertinent Humanitarian Operations 
Leading to Endangered Security Act'' or the ``No PLA LOOPHOLES Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON MILITARY-TO-MILITARY EXCHANGES 
              AND CONTACTS WITH CHINESE PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY.

    Section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65; 10 U.S.C. 168 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``Advanced logistical 
        operations'' and inserting ``Logistical operations''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (c).
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 67
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 67 appear at 76 FR 30541, May 26, 2011.

§ 67.10 Appeals. ( a ) The owner or a duly authorized representative may appeal any of the certifications or denials of certification made under this part or any decisions made under § 67.6(f). ( 1 ) Appeals must: ( i ) Be in writing; e.g. letter, fax, or e-mail;
( ii ) Be addressed to the Chief Appeals Officer, Cultural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240;
( iii ) Be received by NPS within 30 days of receipt by the owner or a duly authorized representative of the decision which is the subject of the appeal; and
( iv ) Include all information the owner wishes the Chief Appeals Officer to consider in deciding the appeal.
( 2 ) The appellant may request a meeting to discuss the appeal.
( 3 ) NPS will notify the SHPO that an appeal is pending.
( 4 ) The Chief Appeals Officer will consider the record of the decision in question, any further written submissions by the owner, and other available information and will provide the appellant a written decision as promptly as circumstances permit.
( 5 ) Appeals under this section constitute an administrative review of the decision appealed from and are not conducted as an adjudicative proceeding.
( b ) The denial of a preliminary determination of significance for an individual property may not be appealed by the owner because the denial itself does not exhaust the administrative remedy that is available. The owner instead must seek recourse by undertaking the usual nomination process (36 CFR part 60).
( c ) In considering such appeals or administrative reviews, the Chief Appeals Officer shall take in account alleged errors in professional judgment or alleged prejudicial procedural errors by NPS officials. The Chief Appeals Officer's decision may: ( 1 ) Reverse the appealed decision;
( 2 ) Affirm the appealed decision;
( 3 ) Resubmit the matter to WASO for further consideration; or
( 4 ) Where appropriate, withhold a decision until issuance of a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to § 67.6(b)(2). The Chief Appeals Officer may base his decision in whole or part on matters or factors not discussed in the decision appealed from. The Chief Appeals Officer is authorized to issue the certifications discussed in this part only if he considers that the requested certification meets the applicable statutory standard upon application of the Standards set forth herein or he considers that prejudicial procedural error by a Federal official legally compels issuance of the requested certification.
( d ) The decision of the Chief Appeals Officer shall be the final administrative decision on the appeal. No person shall be considered to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies with respect to the certifications or decisions described in this part until the Chief Appeals Officer has issued a final administrative decision pursuant to this section.
[54 FR 6771, Feb. 26, 1990, as amended at 76 FR 30541, May 26, 2011]
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20463 

VIA ELECTROiNIC AND CERTIFIED MAIL SEP 2 1 2017 

Charles R. Spies, Esq. 

Elizabeth B. White, Esq. 

Clark Hill 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1300 

Washington, DC 20004 

cspies@clarkhill.com 

RE: MUR 6920 

Dear Mr. Spies and Ms. Beacham: 

On September 20, 2017, the Federal Election Commission found that there is probable 

cause to believe your client, American Conservative Union, violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122, a 

provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and 11 C.F.R. 

§ 110.4(b)(l)(ii), by knowingly permitting its name to be used to effect a contribution in the 

name of another. 

The Commission has a duty to attempt to correct such violations for a period of at least 

30 days and no more than 90 days by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and 

persuasion, and by entering into a conciliation agreement with a respondent. If we are unable to 

reach an agreement after 30 days, the Commission may institute a civil suit in United States 

District Court and seek payment of a civil penalty. Due to the upcoming statute of limitations in 

this matter, we will not be able to engage in more than 30 days of tolling unless ACU agrees to 

toll the statute of limitations. 

We have sent to you, under separate eovcr, the probable cause conciliation offer approved 

by the Commission. 

If you have any 

questions or suggestions for changes in the enclosed conciliation agreement, or if you wish to 

arrange a meeting to discuss the Commission's settlement offer, please contact me at (202) 694-

1634 or afuoio@fec.gov. 

Sincci 

Antoinette Fuoto 

Attorney
Datf of 

report 

1989 

Jan. 15 

20 

&ruutr nf tqr luttr~ &tutrs 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION {Convened January 3, 1969 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRANCIS R. VALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Executive Clerk 

Wednesday, January 22, 1969 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Message Name ofnommee Oflice Prederessor 

No No 

INDIAN CLAIMS 

COMMISSION 

1 12 Theodore R. McKeldin, A Commissioner of the 

of Maryland. Indian Claims CornI miSSIOn. 

DEPARTMENT 01!' 

THE INTERIOR 

170 56 Walter J Hich.cl, of AlaskJ.. ::leeretar) of the InteriOr. 

98-022-69--No 5 

U S 011 VI:I"NMLNT PRINTING OFFICE 1969
Case 16-26920 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 15:20:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 9
Case 16-26920 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 15:20:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 9
Case 16-26920 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 15:20:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 9
Case 16-26920 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 15:20:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 9
Case 16-26920 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 15:20:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 9
Case 16-26920 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 15:20:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 9
Case 16-26920 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 15:20:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 9
Case 16-26920 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 15:20:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 9
Case 16-26920 Doc 1 Filed 08/22/16 Entered 08/22/16 15:20:39 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 9
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                |                                                               |                                   |
|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
| DATE:                  November 14, 2008 |                                                               | /s/ Steven              van der Velden |
|                                     | Steven                  van der Velden                                  |
|                                     | President                  and Chief                  Executive Officer |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been      provided to Elephant Talk Communications, Inc. and will be retained by Elephant      Talk Communications, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission      or its staff upon request.*

----
§ 51.102 What is the effect of the 1998 Act's repeal of the 1965 Act's preference in renewal? ( a ) Section 5 of the 1965 Act required the Secretary to give existing satisfactory concessioners a preference in the renewal (termed a “renewal preference” in the rest of this section) of its concession contract or permit. Section 415 of the 1998 Act repealed this statutory renewal preference as of November 13, 1998. It is the final decision of the Director, subject to the right of appeal set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, that holders of 1965 Act concession contracts are not entitled to be given a renewal preference with respect to such contracts (although they may otherwise qualify for a right of preference regarding such contracts under Sections 403(7) and (8) of the 1998 Act as implemented in this part). However, if a concessioner holds an existing 1965 Act concession contract and the contract makes express reference to a renewal preference, the concessioner may appeal to the Director for recognition of a renewal preference.
( b ) Such appeal must be in writing and be received by the Director no later than thirty days after the issuance of a prospectus for a concession contract under this part for which the concessioner asserts a renewal preference. The Director must make a decision on the appeal prior to the proposal submission date specified in the prospectus. Where applicable, the Director will give notice of this appeal to all potential offerors that requested a prospectus. The Director may delegate consideration of such appeals only to a Deputy or Associate Director. The deciding official must prepare a written decision on the appeal, taking into account the content of the appeal and other available information.
( c ) If the appeal results in a determination by the Director that the 1965 Act concession contract in question makes express reference to a renewal preference under section 5 of the 1965 Act, the 1998 Act's repeal of section 5 of the 1965 Act was inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the concession contract, and that the holder of the concession contract in these circumstances is entitled to a renewal preference by operation of law, the Director will permit the concessioner to exercise a renewal preference for the contract subject to and in accordance with the otherwise applicable right of preference terms and conditions of this part, including, without limitation, the requirement for submission of a responsive proposal pursuant to the terms of an applicable prospectus. The Director, similarly, will permit any holder of a 1965 Act concession contract that a court of competent jurisdiction determines in a final order is entitled to a renewal preference, for any reason, to exercise a right of preference in accordance with the otherwise applicable requirements of this part, including, without limitation, the requirement for submission of a responsive proposal pursuant to the terms of an applicable prospectus.
#### Pillar v. Runkel, Rowley & Co.

(Opinion filed December 17, 1898.)

Appeal from circuit court, Meade county. Hon. A. J. Plowman, Judge.

Attachment by Dexter Pillar against Runkel, Rowley & Co., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of South .Dakota. From an order overruling a motion to discharge the attachment, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Rice & Polley (Burke é Goodner,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Smith & Brotan,*for respondent.

Fuller, J.

As the record now before us presents questions of law and fact identical with.the case of Chaffee v. This Defendant, 11 S. D. 333, 77 N. W. 583, an opinion would be but a needless repetition. Controlled by the conclusion there reached, the order overruling a motion to discharge the attachment is affirmed. 1