alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1533

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase

the penalty for escaping from a Federal prison.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1533

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the

penalty for escaping from a Federal prison.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1533 EH

1 That section 751(a) of title 18, United States Code, is

2 amended by striking ‘‘five’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 12,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER

FOUNDATION,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 07-0656 (JDB)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE,

 Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is [40] the Department of Justice's motion for summary judgment. The

Electronic Frontier Foundation has indicated that it does not oppose that motion, with one

exception. See Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Cross-Motion for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Mem.") [Docket Entry

43], at 1. That exception is the Department's "continued withholding of Intelligence Oversight

Board Case Numbers" under exemption two of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §

552(b)(2). Id. The Foundation cross-moves for partial summary judgment on that issue. But the

Department is not withholding Intelligence Oversight Board Case Numbers under exemption

two. Indeed, in its own motion for summary judgment, the Department asserted that it was no

longer withholding the Case Numbers at all, and would be releasing that information to the

Foundation. See Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. [Docket Entry 40], at 17 n.12. And 1

 In its cross-motion for summary judgment, the Foundation indicated that it believed the 1

Department of Justice's decision to release the Intelligence Oversight Board Case Numbers

extended to all documents, not only those "contained in the representative sample of documents

designated by the parties." Pl.'s Mem. at 4. The Department concurred in this assessment. See

Def.'s Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. [Docket Entry 45], at 2; see also Bonner v. Dep't of

State, 928 F.2d 1148, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (documents in a representative sample "count not
the Department has now done so. See Def.'s Status Report [Docket Entry 49], at 1 ("DOJ hereby

reports that it has completed this review and released to plaintiff Electronic Frontier Foundation .

. . [Intelligence Oversight Board] Case Numbers . . . ."). Because the Department voluntarily

agreed to release the Case Numbers before the Foundation filed its cross-motion for partial

summary judgment requesting the same action, there is no basis on which the grant the

Foundation's cross-motion. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Department of Justice's motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED; it is further

ORDERED that the Electronic Frontier Foundation's cross-motion for partial summary

judgment is DENIED as moot; and it is further

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ John D. Bates 

 JOHN D. BATES

 United States District Judge

Dated: May 25, 2010

simply for themselves, but for presumably similar non-sample documents still withheld").

-2-
#### Jacob Haag and Philip Haag, *Claimants and Respondents,*v. Charles Hillemeier, *Owner and Appellant*.

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Cullen, J.
§ 195.19-1 When required. ( a ) All mechanically propelled vessels in ocean or coastwise service must be fitted with a magnetic compass.
( b ) All mechanically propelled vessels of 1,600 gross tons and over in ocean or coastwise service must be fitted with a gyrocompass in addition to the magnetic compass.
( c ) Each vessel must have an illuminated repeater for the gyrocompass required under paragraph (b) that is at the main steering stand unless the gyrocompass is illuminated and is at the main steering stand.
[CGD 75-074, 42 FR 5965, Jan. 31, 1977]
**EXHIBIT 99.13****CONSENT OF EXPERT**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Cameco Corporation (the“Company”) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name under the heading “The NuclearBusiness — Reserves and Resources” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year endedDecember 31, 2006, dated March 30, 2007 (the “AIF”), under the heading “Qualified Persons” inManagement’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the yearended December 31, 2006 (the “MD&A”) and in the 40-F, and to disclosure of a scientific andtechnical nature pursuant to which I have acted in a supervisory capacity under the heading “TheNuclear Business — Reserves and Resources” of the AIF and under the heading “Qualified Persons” inthe MD&A.Sincerely,*/s/ Chuck Edwards*
#### § 201.139 Documents containing matter both material and not material.

Where written matter offered in evidence is embraced in a document containing other matter which is not intended to be offered in evidence, the party offering shall present the original document to all parties at the hearing for their inspection, and shall offer a true copy of the matter which is to be introduced unless the presiding officer determines that the matter is short enough to be read into the record. Opposing parties shall be afforded an opportunity to introduce in evidence, or by stipulations other portions of the original document which are material and relevant.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Lycos, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 
333-47677, 333-51593 and 333-61821) on Form S-8 and the registration statements 
(Nos. 333-47679, 333-51591, 333-60101 and 333-61413) on Form S-3 of Lycos, Inc. 
of our report dated August 18, 1998 relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of Lycos, Inc. as of July 31, 1998, and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended July 31, 1998, which report appears in the
July 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K of Lycos, Inc.


                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
October 19, 1998
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EMILY LIVINGSTON SCOWN AND

BARBARA SCOWN,

Appellant s

,

v.

THE CITY OF ALPINE, TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00301

- CV

Appeal from

394th District Court

of Brewster County, Texas

(TC # 2015

- 03

- B0705

- CV )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellant to pay all costs of this appeal. We further order

that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DA Y OF MARCH, 2017.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### § 201.171 Stay of Administration's decision.

The Administration's decision or order shall be stayed pending resolution by the Administration of a petition for reopening, duly filed, and for so long as such Administration's action has not been finally disposed of in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of Department of Commerce Order 117 (Revised).
# C_2013156EN.01004002.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — TCMFG v Council

(Case T-404/11) (1)

1

(Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Iran intended to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 156/73

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Turbo Compressor Manufacturer (TCMFG) (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and J-P. Hix, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), to the extent that it affects the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, to the extent that it affects Turbo Compressor Manufacturer (TCMFG); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, to the extent that it affects Turbo Compressor Manufacturer (TCMFG);

| 2. | Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/299, to the extent that it affects TCMFG, for a period which may not exceed two months and ten days as from the date of delivery of this judgment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/299, to the extent that it affects TCMFG, for a period which may not exceed two months and ten days as from the date of delivery of this judgment.

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by TCMFG. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by TCMFG.

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

1

---
Contact

RhondaChambers

Directorof Aviation

FortDodge RegionalAirport

Phone:(515)573-3881Ext.3

Fax:(515)955-1431

1639NelsonAve..Suite2

FortDodge. IA 50501

fdairport@fortdodgeiowa.org

www.fortdodgeiowa.org

1) 0 d~-t~ ~\- \P Ia-'$::l

d~~

">.;; DFORT

ODGE

Regional Airport

PRESS RELEASE

)

Airport Commission will begin process to find new air service.

Fort Dodge.IA January 27. 2014: With the announcement from Great LakesAirljnes

suspension of air service on February 1.2014. the airport commission and community partners

will begin the process of regaining an air service comer.

The process begins with the U.S.Department of Transportation who administers the

Essential Air Service program. The EssentialAir Service program began in 1978 after airline

deregulation to make sure rural communities were not abandoned.

Great Lakes began providing air service on April 11.2012 after Mesaba Aviation. Inc .. and

Pinnacle Airlines. d/b/a Delta Connections (Delta) filed a notice of their intent to suspend

air service to many of its small regional cities. including Fort Dodge. Great Lakes' contract

expires on May 31. 2014. Fort Dodge began receiving the EssentialAir Service subsidy

after 9/11 when Northwest Airlines was the air service provider.

Federal Aviation Regulation 121changes for PilotCertification and Qualification Requirements

for Air Carrier Operations effective August 1.2013and Federal Aviation Regulation 117.Flight

Crew Member Duty and RestRequirements effective January 4. 2014 have impacted Great

Lakes' ability to retain the number of pilots qualified under the new rulesto meet the needs of

their operating schedule. It isestimated that it takes 20%more pilots to fulfill the changes to

the duty restrequirements and operate the same schedule as before January 4.2014. Thishas

impacted all airlines. including Great LakesAirlines.Since the firstof the year. Great Lakes has

cancelled 50%of their scheduled flights due to no pilot crews. Thisseverely impacted the

enplanements. Annual enplanements for 2013were 3.061.the lowest number of

enplanements since beginning records in 1986. Enplanements for 2011and 2012were 11.150

and 6.151 respectively. Great Lakesschedule within the EssentialAirService contract isto

provide three daily round trip flights each weekday and two round trips flights on Saturday and

Sunday to the Minneapolis st. Paul International airport utilizinga 19-seat Beech 1900turbo

prop aircraft.

The Airport Commission isoptimistic that enplanements will rebound once consistent flight

schedules are resumed. Airport Director Rhonda Chambers stated. 'The demand for

consistent access to air service remains within our Region and it isour intent to secure a carrier

who can meet those needs."
#### § 401.440 Advance payment of charges.

Subject to the approval of the Director, a United States or Canadian Registered Pilot performing pilotage services in accordance with the rates and charges set forth in this subpart may require advance payment of such rates or charges or a suitable bond securing payment.

[29 FR 10467, July 28, 1964, as amended at 32 FR 14221, Oct. 13, 1967. Redesignated at 61 FR 32655, June 25, 1996, and further redesignated by USCG-1998-3976, 63 FR 35139, June 29, 1998]
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00574- CR

P at r ic ia A nne P hill ips, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 57834 , HO NORAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellan t pleaded guilty

to ag g ravated assault. SeeTex. P en. Code Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2005). The cour t adjudg ed her g uilty and imposed a twe lve-year prison sentenc e. Th e re wa s n o p le a

ba rg a in, and the c ourt c e rt if ie d a pp e lla nt’ s r ig ht o f a

pp e a l. Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp ointe d atto rn e y

fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ing

that th e a

pp eal is frivolous and without mer it. The brief meets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of t h e re co rd demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tate , 573 S.W. 2d 807 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 4 3 6 S. W. 2 d

1 3 7 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 69 ). Ap pe lla nt r e c e ive d a

c op y of c ouns e l’ s b rief and was a dv ise d o f h e r r ig ht t o examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se br ief. No pr o se brief has bee n filed.2 We have r eviewe d the re cord a nd counsel’s br ief a

nd ag ree that the a

p p e a l is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arg uably support the appe al. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pemberton Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 24, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh
#### § 168.15-55 Screening.

Provision must be made to protect the quarters against the admission of insects.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2428]



[[Page 27823]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meetig will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space availalbe. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases initial Review Group, Digestive Diseases and 
Nutrition C Subcommittee.
    Date: June 28-29, 2007.
    Open: June 28, 2007, 2 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review procedures and discuss policy.
    Place: Courtyard by Marriott Crystal City, 2899 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
    Closed: June 28, 2007, 2:30 p.m. to 7 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Courtyard by Marriott Crystal City, 2899 Jefferson David 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
    Closed: June 29, 2007, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Courtyard by Marriott Crystal City, 2899 Jefferson David 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
    Contact Person: Dan E. Matsumoto, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of 
Health, Room 749, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 
(301) 594-8894, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5d8d4c1c6c0d8dac1dad1f5d0cdc1c7d49bdbdcd1d1de9bdbdcdd9bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="056864717670686a716a6145607d7177642b6b6c61616e2b6b6c6d2b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 8, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2428 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Cincinnati Bar Association *v.*Deardorff. Cincinnati Bar Association *v.*Haas.

[Cite as *Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Deardorff*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 85.]

(Nos. 98-377 and 98-378

Submitted June 24, 1998

Decided November 25, 1998.)

*88
      *Paul M. De Marco, John G. Slauson*and *Robert J. Hollingsworth,*for relator.

*Mark H. Aultman*and *Gary A. Rosenhojfer,*for respondent Timothy J. Deardorff (No. 98-377).

*89
      *John H. Burlew*and *Bradley G. Haas,*for respondent Loren S. Haas (No. 98-378).

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings of the board. In order to avoid having St. Paul testify falsely, the respondent attorneys had decided to employ the tactic of a motion to dismiss based on what they.at the time believed were the desires and fears of St. Paul, and the facts surrounding her affidavit.

However, the attorneys went further. They then proceeded to discuss with St. Paul possible contingent courses of action. Although St. Paul led them into manufacturing a story by continually asking what would happen if the motion to dismiss were denied, the attorneys should not have suggested that St. Paul testify that she was the instigator of the altercation when that approach had no basis in fact. Although one of the respondents told St. Paul that they were not telling her to lie, the respondents did tell her that if granted immunity she could say anything she wished and they produced the story she might tell, if required. We therefore adopt the conclusion of the board that the respondents violated the specific Disciplinary Rules. We also note that the respondents’ attempt to represent both the defendant and the principal witness against the defendant was inimical to the administration of justice.

We adopt also the board’s recommendation that respondent Deardorff be suspended for one year, with six months of that suspension stayed. Respondent Haas is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year of that suspension stayed. Both respondents will also enroll in six^ hours of continuing legal education in ethics to be completed within the term of each respondent’s suspension. Costs taxed to respondents.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Mel Wyman, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pop N Go, Inc.

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within June 30, 2005 prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the  "Evaluation Date"); and

c)    presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.    I have disclosed, my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors
and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material  weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date: August 22, 2005

/s/Melvin Wyman
----------------
Melvin Wyman
Chairman, and Chief Financial Officer
(Principle Financial)