alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2010045EN.01010001.xml

| 23.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 45/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 45/100

---

EC-Albania Stabilisation and Association Agreement (accession of Bulgaria and Romania) ***

P6_TA(2008)0585

European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 December 2008 on the proposal for a Council and Commission decision on conclusion of the Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (7999/2008 — COM(2008)0139 — C6-0453/2008 — 2008/0057(AVC))

(2010/C 45 E/21)

(Assent procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the proposal for a Council and Commission decision (COM(2008)0139), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council and Commission decision (COM(2008)0139),

| — | having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 300(2), first subparagraph, second sentence and Article 310 of the EC Treaty (C6-0453/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 300(2), first subparagraph, second sentence and Article 310 of the EC Treaty (C6-0453/2008),

| — | having regard to Rules 75, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 75, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0496/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0496/2008),

1.   Gives its assent to conclusion of the Protocol;

2.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Albania.

---
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In ffae Matter of 

' A09-08 

Audit Division Recommendation ) Agenda Document No. 12-64 

Memorandum on the Minnesota 

Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party 

(MNDFL) 

AMENDED CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodfaead Wertfa, recording secretary of tfae Federal Election Commission open 

meeting on October 18,2012 do faereby certify tfaat tfae Commission took tfae following actions 

in tfae above-captioned matter: 

1. Failedbyavoteof3-3to: 

Approve tfae Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum 

on the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (MNDFL). 

Commissioners Bauerly, Walther, and Weintraub voted affirmatively for the motion. 

Commissioners Hunter, McGahn n, and Petersen dissented. 

2. Failed by a vote of 3-3 to: 

Approve Finding 1. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Walther, and Wemtraub voted afGrmatively for the motioiL 

Commissioners Hunter, McGafan n, and Petersen dissented. 
Federal Election Commission Page 2 

Certification for A09-08 (Agenda Document No. 12-64) 

October 18,2012 

3. Decided by a vote of 6-0 to: 

Approve Finding 2. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McCfafan n, Petersen, Waltiier, and Weiiitraub voted 

affinnatively for tfae decision. 

Attest: ^ 

llon/ikrd; ao/A. A.iuA)kJH ii/it / /ic-^y 

Date Sfaawn Woodfaead Wwdi 7 

Secretary and Clerk of tfae Commission
§ 604.600 Semi-annual compilation. ( a ) The head of each agency shall collect and compile the disclosure reports (see appendix B) and, on May 31 and November 30 of each year, submit to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives a report containing a compilation of the information contained in the disclosure reports received during the six-month period ending on March 31 or September 30, respectively, of that year.
( b ) The report, including the compilation, shall be available for public inspection 30 days after receipt of the report by the Secretary and the Clerk.
( c ) Information that involves intelligence matters shall be reported only to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with procedures agreed to by such committees. Such information shall not be available for public inspection.
( d ) Information that is classified under Executive Order 12356 or any successor order shall be reported only to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives (whichever such committees have jurisdiction of matters involving such information) and to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with procedures agreed to by such committees. Such information shall not be available for public inspection.
( e ) The first semi-annual compilation shall be submitted on May 31, 1990, and shall contain a compilation of the disclosure reports received from December 23, 1989 to March 31, 1990.
( f ) Major agencies, designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), are required to provide machine-readable compilations to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives no later than with the compilations due on May 31, 1991. OMB shall provide detailed specifications in a memorandum to these agencies.
( g ) Non-major agencies are requested to provide machine-readable compilations to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
( h ) Agencies shall keep the originals of all disclosure reports in the official files of the agency.
#### Lucy Ziegler, by August Ziegler, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, *v.*Bell Telephone Company of Buffalo, Appellant.

*Ziegler*v. *Bell Telephone Go.,*128 App. Div. 884, affirmed.

(Argued December 17, 1909;

decided January 4, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 2, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s negligence.

*Clinton B. Gibbs*for appellant.

*Ford White*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
§ 95.517 Claims for Federal financial participation. ( a ) A State must claim FFP for costs associated with a program only in accordance with its approved cost allocation plan. However, if a State has submitted a plan or plan amendment for a State agency, it may, at its option claim FFP based on the proposed plan or plan amendment, unless otherwise advised by the DCA. However, where a State has claimed costs based on a proposed plan or plan amendment the State, if necessary, shall retroactively adjust its claims in accordance with the plan or amendment as subsequently approved by the Director, DCA. The State may also continue to claim FFP under its existing approved cost allocation plan for all costs not affected by the proposed amendment.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40358 Conference Calendar

LLOYD E. BURRUSS, Movant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:04-CV-275

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lloyd E. Burruss, Texas prisoner # 864554, appeals the denial of his motion to intervene in the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit filed by fellow prisoner John Lee Newman. Newman’s suit was subsequently dismissed, as was his appeal of the judgment of dismissal. Because the lawsuit in which Burruss sought to intervene is no longer pending, this appeal is moot. See Willy v. Administrative Review Board , 423 F.3d 483, 494 n.50 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
§ 2551.71 What requirements govern the assignment of Senior Companions? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70542 , Aug. 30, 2024.
( a ) Senior Companion assignments shall provide for Senior Companions to give direct services to one or more eligible adults that: ( 1 ) Result in person-to-person supportive relationships with each client served.
( 2 ) Support the achievement and maintenance of the highest level of independent living for their clients.
( 3 ) Are meaningful to the Senior Companion.
( 4 ) Are supported by appropriate orientation, training, and supervision.
( b ) Senior Companions shall not provide services such as those performed by medical personnel, services to large numbers of clients, custodial services, administrative support services, or other services that would detract from their assignment.
[67 FR 60999, Sept. 27, 2002, as amended at 83 FR 64647, Dec. 17, 2018]
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Greg Mardock, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
(principal executive officer) of Flexxtech Corporation (the "Registrant"),
certifies that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 of the Registrant
(the "Report"):

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/S/ GREG MARDOCK
-----------------------
NAME: GREG MARDOCK
DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2002
§ 108.203 Berths and lockers. ( a ) Each sleeping space must have a separate berth for each occupant.
( b ) No more than one berth may be placed over another.
( c ) Each berth must have a framework of hard, smooth material that is not likely to corrode or harbor vermin.
( d ) Each berth must be arranged to provide ample room for easy occupancy.
( e ) Each berth must be at least 76 centimeters (approximately 30 inches) wide by 193 centimeters (approximately 76 inches) long.
( f ) Adjacent berths must be separated by a partition that extends at least 46 centimeters (approximately 18 inches) above the sleeping surface.
( g ) The bottom of a lower berth must be at least 30 centimeters (approximately 12 inches) above the deck.
( h ) The bottom of an upper berth must be at least 76 centimeters (approximately 2 feet 6 inches) from the bottom of the berth below it and from the deck or any pipe, ventilating duct, or other overhead installation.
( i ) Each berth must have a berth light.
( j ) Each occupant of a sleeping space must have a readily accessible locker of hard, smooth material.
( k ) Each locker must be at least .194 square meters (approximately 300 square inches) in cross section and 1.53 meters (approximately 60 inches) high.
Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 81-1 Filed 08/24/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 81-1 Filed 08/24/17 Page 2 of 2
ALASKA SEAFOOD CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0652

DCN: 00214CBI

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
###### Editorial Note on Part 99

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 99 appear at 63 FR 39998, July 24, 1998.

#### § 99.27 Official transcript.

The Department will designate the official reporter for all hearings. The official transcripts of testimony taken, together with any stipulations, exhibits, briefs, or memoranda of law filed therewith shall be filed with the Department. Transcripts of testimony in hearings may be obtained from the official reporter by the parties and the public at rates not to exceed the maximum rates fixed by the contract between the Department and the reporter. Upon notice to all parties, the presiding officer may authorize corrections to the transcript which involve matters of substance.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

)

STOP RECKLESS ECONOMIC INSTABILITY )

CAUSED BY DEMOCRATS, el al, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

V. ) Case No. 1:14-cv-397 (AJT/IDD)

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently pending are cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs'

constitutional challenges to certain statutory contribution limits under the Federal Election

Campaign Act ("FECA") [Doc. Nos. 56 and 57]. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that (1) the sixmonth registration period, 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(4), violates the First Amendment as applied to

plaintiff Stop Reckless Economic Instability Caused By Democrats ("Stop PAC"); (2) the limit

on contributions from persons to candidates, § 441a(a)(l)(A), violates the Fifth Amendment as

applied to Stop PAC; and (3) FECA's annual limits on contributions from multicandidate nonconnected political committees ("PACs"), like the Tea Party Leadership Fund (the "Fund"), to

national party committees, § 441a(a)(2)(B)($15,000), and to state party committees,

§ 441a(a)(2)(C) ($5,000) violate the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these

provisions are unconstitutional and also a permanent injunction barring defendant Federal

Election Committee ("FEC") from enforcing them against plaintiffs and similarly situated

groups. Forthe reasons stated herein, the Court will assume, withoutdeciding, that plaintiffs

have standing to raise their claims and that their claims are not moot, but concludes that the

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID# 1088
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 17 PageID# 1089
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 17 PageID# 1090
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 4 of 17 PageID# 1091
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 5 of 17 PageID# 1092
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 6 of 17 PageID# 1093
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 7 of 17 PageID# 1094
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 8 of 17 PageID# 1095
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 9 of 17 PageID# 1096
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 10 of 17 PageID# 1097
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 11 of 17 PageID# 1098
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 12 of 17 PageID# 1099
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 13 of 17 PageID# 1100
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 14 of 17 PageID# 1101
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 15 of 17 PageID# 1102
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 16 of 17 PageID# 1103
Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 76 Filed 02/27/15 Page 17 of 17 PageID# 1104
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        [HENRY & PETERS, PC LETTERHEAD]

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to the use of our report dated November 16, 1999, on the consolidated
financial statements of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
September 30, 1999 and 1998, and for each of the years in the three-year period
ended September 30, 1999, in Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the year
ended September 30, 1999.

                                               /s/ HENRY & PETERS, P.C.
                                               -----------------------------
                                               HENRY & PETERS, P.C.

Tyler, Texas
December 23, 1999
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****NGA Chart: 11461          Scale: 300,000          Edition: 5          Edition Date: 26-APR-97          CORRECTED TO NTM:  1997/26**Notice Listing-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NGA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NGA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1973 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1973

To amend title 39, United States Code, to require post offices to have 
    running water and sanitation facilities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 2009

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 39, United States Code, to require post offices to have 
    running water and sanitation facilities, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Post Office Modernization Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. WATER AND SANITATION REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 417. Water and sanitation requirements
    ``The Postal Service shall ensure that every post office has access 
to running water and to bathroom facilities connected to either a sewer 
system or a septic tank.''.
    (b) Non-Conforming Post Offices.--Not later than 30 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the United States Postal Service 
shall begin upgrades to ensure compliance with the requirements of 
section 417 of title 39, United States Code (as added by subsection 
(a)).
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 4 of 
title 39, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``417. Water and sanitation requirements.''.

SEC. 3. LACK OF FACILITIES NOT TO BE CONSIDERED.

    Section 404(d)(2)(B) of title 39, United States Code, is amended to 
read as follows:
            ``(B) may not consider--
                    ``(i) compliance with any provision of the 
                Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 
                651 et seq.); or
                    ``(ii) whether the requirements of section 417 are 
                met in connection with the post office.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Chapple *v.*The State.

There was a variance between tlie contract alleged in the accusation and that proved, and the verdict was not supported by the evidence.

Argued October 18,

Decided November 9, 1906.

Accusation of misdemeanor. Before Judge Little. City court of Sparta. August 28, 1906.

*T. M. Sunt,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. W. Moore, solicitor,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

An accusation alleged that the defendant did commit the.offence of cheating and swindling, for that on the 24th day of October, 1905, he “did, after having contracted with Waller Bros., a firm composed [of] B" Ii. Waller and G. C. Waller, to perform for them certain services as a wage hand, at and for the sum of $9.00 per month, and to work for said Waller Bros, under said contract a sufficient length of time to pay in full the sum of $110.00 procured of them under said contract, said $110.00 having been procured with intent not to perform said contract, to the loss and damage of the hirer in the sum of $54.00, said labor not having been performed or said money returned to said hirers, and no cause having been given for non-performance of said contract.” The evidence of one of the hirers, in regard to the contract; was as follows: “The firm of Waller Brothers did make a contract with Alex. Chappie during the year 1905. The contract was that we paid a fine here in court for his wife (the fine was seventy-five dollars), and he came to us and told us he would pay us one hundred and ten dollars and work it out if we would pay .the fine and not let her go to the chain-gang. We took the contract for one liun-dred and ten dollars, and he was to commence that day — the next *639•day (that was on the 24th'of October, I believe), and work for nine •dollars a month and we feed him until he paid the .one hundred and ten dollars, and when he had to have clothes and such things as that, I paid for them too. He commenced the 25th day of October and worked until the 26th day of June. At the end of that time he hacjj taken up about ten or twelve dollars worth, and he lost twenty-eight days time, at nine dollars a month. He took up $10 of $12; not less than $10, not more than $12.” A comparison of these statements will show that there was a variance between the ■contract alleged and that proved, and a verdict of guilty was not .supported by the evidence.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*