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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2494 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2494

To designate 4 counties in the State of New York as high-intensity drug 
trafficking areas, and to authorize funding for drug control activities 
                            in those areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2009

  Mr. McHugh introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate 4 counties in the State of New York as high-intensity drug 
trafficking areas, and to authorize funding for drug control activities 
                            in those areas.

    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 ``New York/New Jersey High-Intensity 
Drug Trafficking Area Expansion Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF HIGH-INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS IN NEW 
              YORK.

    The counties of Clinton, Franklin, Jefferson, and St. Lawrence in 
the State of New York are designated as high-intensity drug trafficking 
areas and shall be part of the New York/New Jersey high-intensity drug 
trafficking area under the program administered by the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary 
for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015 to carry out drug 
control activities in the areas designated by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2012227EN.01000603.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/6

---

Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Enviro Tech Europe Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-291/04: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd, Enviro Tech International, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-118/12 P)

2012/C 227/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Enviro Tech International, Inc.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-291/04 as regards the Appellant's claim for damages; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-291/04 as regards the Appellant's claim for damages; and

| — | declare the Respondent liable for damages suffered by the Appellant; or |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the Respondent liable for damages suffered by the Appellant; or

| — | alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant's claim for damages; and |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant's claim for damages; and

| — | order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court). |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that, in dismissing its application for damages on the grounds that the Appellant had failed to establish the existence of unlawful action on the part of the Commission, the General Court breached European Union law. In particular, the Appellant contends that the General Court committed an error in its interpretation of the Judgment of the Court in Case C-425/08 and, as a consequence, it made an error in law in failing to assess the third part of the Appellant's first plea of illegality in relation to ‘normal handling or use’ and concluding that the application for damages should be dismissed.

For these reasons the Appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-291/04 should be set aside as regards the Appellant's claim for damages and the Respondent should be declared liable for damages suffered by the Appellant.

---
**EXHIBIT 99.4**For fiscal years ended December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, KPMG LLP and itsaffiliates were paid by Cameco Corporation and its subsidiaries the following fees:           **2006**  **2005** **Audit fees:**        Cameco and Canadian joint ventures $834,000  $389,000 Cameco — securities  —   100,000 Centerra and other subsidiaries  895,200   574,800 Centerra — securities  —   —          $1,729,200  $1,063,800          **Audit — related fees:**        Bruce Power Reorganization $—  $70,000 SOX 404 Scoping Project  90,000   35,000 Translation services  —   10,000 Pensions and other  8,500   7,500 Zircatec — Specified Procedures  50,000   —          $148,500  $122,500          **Tax:**        Compliance $167,500  $160,400 Planning and advice  51,700   36,400          $219,200  $196,800          **All other fees:**  —   —                 **Total** $2,096,900  $1,383,100             Pre-Approval Policies and ProceduresAs part of Cameco’s corporate governance practices, under Cameco’s audit committee charter, theaudit committee is required to pre-approve the audit and non-audit services performed by theexternal auditors. Unless a type of service which is to be provided by the external auditorsreceives general pre-approval, it requires specific pre-approval by Cameco’s audit committee oraudit committee chair, or in the absence of the audit committee chair, a member of the auditcommittee as designated by the audit committee. All pre-approvals granted pursuant to thedelegated authority must be presented by the member(s) who granted the pre-approvals to the fullaudit committee at its next meeting. The audit committee has adopted a written policy to provideprocedures to implement the foregoing principles.
§ 34.05-10 Portable and semiportable extinguishers—TB/ALL. ( a ) All portable and semiportable extinguishers on board tank vessels shall be of an approved type.
( b ) The type, size, location and arrangement of portable and semiportable extinguishers shall be as set forth in subpart 34.50.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16694, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 70-143, 35 FR 19905, Dec. 30, 1970]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending August 2, 2008

|Filer                | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                          
|-------------------- | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|EMBASSY BANCORP, INC | * 3A1       | Embassy Bancorp, Inc., Bethlehem, PA, to become a bank holding company by acquiring Embassy Bank for the Lehigh Valley, Bethlehem, PA. | Newspaper:08/25/2008Federal Register:08/25/2008
|Newspaper:           | 08/25/2008 
|Federal Register:    | 08/25/2008 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
----

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ L. Paul Latham                                         |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
| L. Paul Latham                                             |
| President and Chief Executive Officer                      |
| of Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                          |
| Managing General Partner of                                |
| Southwest Royalties Institutional Income Fund VIII-B, L.P. |
|                                                       |
| March 31, 2010                                             |
|                                                       |
|                                                       |
| /s/ Mel G. Riggs                                           |
| Mel G. Riggs                                               |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of              |
| Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                             |
| Managing General Partner of                                |
| Southwest Royalties Institutional Income Fund VIII-B, L.P. |
|                                                       |
| March 31, 2010                                             |
§ 25.10-3 Navigation light certification requirements. ( a ) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, each navigation light must— ( 1 ) Meet the technical standards of the applicable Navigation Rules;
( 2 ) Be certified by a laboratory listed by the Coast Guard to the standards of ABYC A-16 (incorporated by reference, see § 25.01-3), or equivalent, although portable battery-powered lights need only meet the requirements of the standard applicable to them; and
( 3 ) Bear a permanent and indelible label stating the following: ( i ) “USCG Approval 33 CFR 183.810”
( ii ) “MEETS __.” (Insert the identification name or number of the standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to which the light was type-tested.)
( iii ) “TESTED BY __.” (Insert the name or registered certification-mark of the laboratory listed by the Coast Guard that tested the fixture to the standard under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.)
( iv ) Name of Manufacturer.
( v ) Number of Model.
( vi ) Visibility of the light in nautical miles (nm).
( vii ) Date on which the light was type-tested.
( viii ) Identification of bulb used in the compliance test.
( b ) If a light is too small to attach the required label— ( 1 ) Place the information from the label in or on the package that contains the light; and
( 2 ) Mark each light “USCG” followed by the certified range of visibility in nautical miles, for example, “USCG 2nm.” Once installed, this mark must be visible without removing the light.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending May 26, 2007

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Third Quarter of 2007 (July 1, 2007 - September 30, 2007)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2282 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2282

 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reauthorize the State 
                   Criminal Alien Assistance Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2009

Mr. King of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reauthorize the State 
                   Criminal Alien Assistance Program.

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

SECTION 1. SCAAP REAUTHORIZED.

    Section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1231(i)) is amended--
            (1) by amending paragraph (4)(A) to read as follows:
            ``(4)(A) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary of 
        Homeland Security shall give priority to--
                    ``(i) Federal incarceration of undocumented 
                criminal aliens who have committed aggravated felonies; 
                and
                    ``(ii) compensating States, and political 
                subdivisions of States--
                            ``(I) located on a border of the United 
                        States with Canada or Mexico; or
                            ``(II) having one of the fifth largest 
                        populations of aliens who are not authorized to 
                        be present in the United States.''; and
            (2) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:
            ``(5) There are authorized to be appropriated 
        $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to 
        carry out this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 In accordance with the opinion and order entered today, September 28, 2016, it is hereby 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Receivables Performance Management, LLC, is liable to 

Carmelisha Ayers in the amount of $12,500. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Laurie J. Michelson 

 LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

Dated: September 28, 2016 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 28, 2016. 

s/Keisha Jackson 

Case Manager 

CARMELISHA AYERS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE 

MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 2:15-cv-12082 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

JUDGMENT 

Case 2:15-cv-12082-LJM-MJH ECF No. 8 filed 09/28/16 PageID.62 Page 1 of 1
#### § 532.91 OMB control number issued pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Commission has received OMB approval for this collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. In accordance with that Act, agencies are required to display a currently valid control number. The valid control number for this collection of information is 3072-0071.
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Michael W. Bruns, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DOVER SADDLERY, INC.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions) a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 15, 2007 /s/   Michael W. Bruns   Michael W. Bruns   Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION

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 on Form 10-K of Electronic Data Systems Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31,
2006 (the Report), Michael H. Jordan, as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ronald P. Vargo, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(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/ MICHAEL H. JORDAN               
|Michael H. Jordan                   
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|March 1, 2007                       



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|/S/ RONALD P. VARGO                                 
|Ronald P. Vargo                                     
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|March 1, 2007                                       

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 36.01-5 Certificate of inspection—TB/ALL. ( a ) The certificate of inspection shall be endorsed for the carriage of elevated temperature cargoes as follows: “Inspected and approved for the carriage of Grade E combustible liquids when transported in molten form at elevated temperatures.”
( b ) [Reserved]
#### George Mark and others, *Plaintiff, v.*The Hudson River Bridge Company, *Defendant*.

Judgment and order reversed on plaintiff’s appeal, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Rumsey, J.
§ 327.40 Other Admiralty claims. ( a ) Admiralty claims caused by United States owned and operated vessels on navigable waters or otherwise that are not covered under the Clarification Act (50 U.S.C. app. 1291(a)), the Admiralty Extension Act (46 U.S.C. 30101) or the Contracts Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 601 *et. seq.*) may be filed with the Maritime Administration in accordance with §§ 327.40 through 327.52.
( b ) A civil action against the United States for admiralty claims caused by United States owned and operated vessels on navigable waters or otherwise that are not covered under the Clarification Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1291(a)), the Admiralty Extension Act (46 U.S.C. 30101) or the Contracts Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 601 *et. seq.*) may be brought without the filing of an administrative claim. This Part III sets forth the optional procedure for filing such claims with the Maritime Administration in advance of litigation. Once litigation is filed, the authority to handle such claims is vested with the Justice Department, not the agency.
( c ) Proceeding against the United States pursuant to the requirements this Part III is not a requirement for filing suit against the United States of America, acting by and through the Maritime Administration, with respect to such admiralty claims.
#### § 30.10-48a Oil fuel unit—TB/ALL.

The term *oil fuel unit* means the equipment used for the preparation of oil fuel for delivery to an oil fired boiler, the equipment used for the preparation of heated oil fuel for delivery to an internal combustion engine, and any oil fuel pressure pump, filter, and heater that deals with oil at a pressure of more than 1.8 kilograms per square centimeter (25 p.s.i.) gauge.

[CGD 74-127, 41 FR 3843, Jan. 26, 1976]