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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1642

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 12 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

AN ACT

To extend nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation

treatment) to the products of Cambodia, and for other

purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that—
2

•HR 1642 RFS

1 (1) Cambodia is now under democratic rule

2 after 20 years of undemocratic regimes and civil

3 war, and is striving to rebuild its market economy;

4 (2) extension of unconditional most-favored-na5 tion treatment would assist Cambodia in developing

6 its economy based on free market principles and be7 coming competitive in the global marketplace;

8 (3) establishing normal commercial relations on

9 a reciprocal basis with Cambodia will promote

10 United States exports to the rapidly growing South11 east Asian region and expand opportunities for

12 United States business and investment in the Cam13 bodian economy; and

14 (4) expanding bilateral trade relations that in15 cludes a commercial agreement will promote further

16 progress by Cambodia on human rights and toward

17 adoption of regional and world trading rules and

18 principles.

19 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT

20 TO THE PRODUCTS OF CAMBODIA.

21 (a) HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE AMEND22 MENT.—General note 3(b) of the Harmonized Tariff

23 Schedule of the United States is amended by striking

24 ‘‘Kampuchea’’.
3

•HR 1642 RFS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the effective date of a notice published in the Federal Reg5 ister by the United States Trade Representative that a

6 trade agreement obligating reciprocal most-favored-nation

7 treatment between Cambodia and the United States has

8 entered into force.

9 SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

10 The President shall submit to the Congress, not later

11 than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this

12 Act, a report on the trade relations between the United

13 States and Cambodia pursuant to the trade agreement de14 scribed in section 2(b).

Passed the House of Representatives July 11, 1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, April 3, 1995 (54), Para 54.25 Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Pages 526-527]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.54.25  reports of committees on public bills and resolutions

  Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to 
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

       Mr. McINNIS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 125. 
     Resolution providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1271) to provide protection for family privacy (Rept. No. 
     104-97). Referred to the House Calendar.
       Mr. DIAZ-BALART: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 126. 
     Resolution providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     660) to amend the Fair Housing Act to modify the exemption 
     from certain familial status discrimination prohibitions 
     granted to housing for older persons (Rept. No. 104-98). 
     Referred to the House Calendar.
       Mr. CLINGER: Committee of Conference. Conference report on 
     S. 244. An act to further the goals of the Paperwork 
     Reduction Act to have Federal agencies become more 
     responsible and publicly accountable for reducing the burden 
     of Federal paperwork on the public, and for other purposes 
     (Rept. No. 104-99). Ordered to be printed. 

[[Page 527]]
```
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: 10
Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas City

## Filings received during the week ending May 3, 2008

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIRST STATE BANK  | * Branch       | First State Bank, Lincoln, Nebraska, to establish a branch at 108 West Third Street, Firth, Nebraska. | Newspaper:05/15/2008Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 05/15/2008    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## 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
#### Herman Tallman, *Appellant, v.*Albert G. Zabriskie, *Responden*t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Gilbert, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IN RE: KENNEDITH FITZGERALD MARTIN EL, 

Petitioner. 

 / 

Case No. 15-mc-50984 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING MATTER

On July 14, 2015, Kennedith Fitzgerald Martin El (a/k/a “Kennedith Fitzgerald Miller 

Martin”), filed a plethora of documents including an “Affidavit of Truth” [1], “Constructive 

Legal Notice-UCC-1 Registration Declaration of Sovereignty Ultimate Claim to Legal Freedom 

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal” [2], Notice of 

Entitlement Right UCC-1 Registeration [sic]” [3], “Copyright Notice of Commerical TradeName/Mark-UCC-1 Registration Declaration of Sovereignty Ultimate Claim to Legal Freedom 

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal” [4], and a “Special 

Power of Attorney in Fact and Declaration of Representative” [5]. 

Having reviewed all of Petitioner’s filings, the Court has determined that federal subject 

matter jurisdiction is lacking. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they have 

only such jurisdiction as is defined by Article III of the United States Constitution and granted by 

Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Fisher v. 

Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th Cir. 2001). As provided in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, federal 

courts have jurisdiction (1) over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 

the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“federal question jurisdiction”), and (2) over civil actions 

2:15-mc-50984-GAD-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 24
-2- 

between completely diverse parties where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“diversity jurisdiction”). Federal courts have a duty to consider their 

subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte. See In re 

Lewis, 398 F.3d 735, 739 (6th Cir. 2005). Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) 

requires the Court to dismiss an action if, at any time, it determines it lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Here, Petitioner neither raises a federal cause of action nor asserts a state cause of action 

involving diverse parties that exceeds $75,000. This Court therefore lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 6, 2015 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

Detroit, MI HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge

2:15-mc-50984-GAD-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 25
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of John Consalus, *as Executor of*Amelia W. Hall, *Deceased*.

Decree affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
§ 64.3 Applicability. ( a ) This part applies to each MPT for which the Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, receives an application for approval on or before May 1, 1991.
( b ) Subpart F of this part also applies to portable tanks and to cargo-handling systems for portable tanks authorized under subparts 98.30 and 98.33 of this chapter.
[CGD 84-043, 55 FR 37409, Sept. 11, 1990]
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.012-5 Scope. ( a ) The purpose of this specification is to set forth the fire protection standards for “Interior Finishes” applied to “Bulkhead Panels” or “Incombustible Materials” approved under subpart 164.008 or 164.009 of this subchapter. The term “Interior Finish” means any coating, overlay, or veneer except standard paint which is applied for decorative or other purpose. It includes not only the visible finish, but all material used in its composition and in its application to the approved “Bulkhead Panel” or “Incombustible Material.” When finishes are applied to both sides of a panel, each must comply with this specification.
( b ) “Interior Finishes” of not more than 0.075′′ thickness qualifying under § 164.012-10 and those materials which are described in paragraph (c) of this section, may be used without restriction on all merchant vessels, including those locations where combustible veneers, trim, moldings, and decorations are specifically prohibited by subpart 72.05 of subchapter H (Rules and Regulations for Passenger Vessels) of this chapter.
( c ) With the exception of nitrocellulose or other highly inflammable or noxious fume-producing paints or lacquers (which are prohibited), a limited number of coats of any standard paint, or any “Incombustible Material” approved under subpart 164.009 of this subchapter in any thickness, or a combination thereof, are considered as automatically satisfying the intent of this specification and no test or proof of compliance will be required. Paint may be applied to one or both sides of “Bulkhead Panels” or “Incombustible Materials,” but it shall never be applied as an internal layer in sandwich or laminar construction.
[CGFR 61-15, 26 FR 9303, Sept. 30, 1961]
#### Jeremiah Sullivan, *Respondent, v.*Mary C. Brick, Appellant.—

Order reversed, with costs and disbursements, and motion granted with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
● Urb. La Vega 60 Calle C Villalba

, P.R. 00766 ● Tel. (787) 847

- 0088 ● Cel. (787) 602

- 5364 ● tony.rodz@me.com

RE: Petition for exemption/rulemaking

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modern ization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, this petition for exemption on behalf of Juan Antonio Rodriguez Laboy for “ Producciones Hermanos Mendez Diaz ” ( “ HMD ” ) , an operator of Sma ll Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“ UA s ”) for aerial cinematography in Puerto Rico . Specifically, petitioner seeks an exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed in Appendices A and B to allow commercial operation of its UA s, so long as such operations are conducted within and under the c onditions outlined herein or as may be estab lished by the FAA in a grant of this petition. This request is substantially similar to other data collection p etitions previously approved, and should be considered under the expedited summary grant procedure.

Approval of the exemption for petitioner wil l allow commercial operation of the DJI Phantom 3 Professional in Class G airspace nationwide unless otherwise prescribed by an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued COA

. This UA has been previously approved for commercial operations in Exemption Nos. 11204

, 11224

, 1254

, 11279

, 1 1 280

, 11288

, 11295

, 11301

, 11303

, 11313

, 11314

, 11318

, 11323

, 11327

, 11336

, 11342

, 11359

, 11377

, 11384

, 11385

, and 11394 . The UA covered by this petition is a small battery

p owered craft

, weighing approximately 6.5 lbs., inclusive of battery and payload. Operation of the UA under the strict conditions propos ed below will provide an equivalent level of safety, as Congress intended, while still allo wing commercial operations. Operations using these UAs are far safer than conventional operations conducted with helicopters and fixed

- wing aircraft that weigh thousa nds of pounds

, carry highly flammable fuel, a nd operat e in close proximity to the ground, trees, infrastructure , and people.Congress directed the FAA to consider seven factors in deciding

whether to approv e Section 333 exemption petitions

- siz e, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports, proximity to populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight . In this case, each factor support s the exemption requ est. In particular, the UA is small, and will operate at slow speeds and close to the ground . It will be able to more safely and efficiently conduct operations that woul d otherwise involve risk of injury or death. The substantial increase of safety and decrease of risk t o human life and to property weighs h eavily in favor of granting the exemption.

If w e can provide any additional information to assist your understanding or review of this document, please do not hesitate to contact me at 787

- 602

- 5364 or via email at tony.rodz@me.com

. Thank you.

Juan Antonio Rodriguez Laboy
**Exhibit 31.1**
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Thomas G. Hudson, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Computer NetworkTechnology Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and we have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluations; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.
Date: September 7, 2004      /s/ THOMAS G. HUDSON   Thomas G. Hudson   Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT - ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT


Pursuant to the provisions of Section  16-10-a-1002 of the Utah Revised Business
Corporation Act, this  "Corporation"  adopts the following Articles of Amendment
to its Articles of Incorporation:

1. The name of the Corporation is Mammoth Resources, Inc.

2. The following  Article of the Articles of Incorporation is amended to read as
follows:

Article I is replaced with the following:

The name of the corporation is hereby changed to:

Symphony Telecom International, Inc.

3. The date of adoption of this Amendment was March 23, 2000.

4. The foregoing was voted upon with unanimous  (100%)  approval of the Board of
Directors, without the need for shareholder approval.

5. The effective time and date of these articles of amendment  shall be the date
and time of filing with the State of Utah. Executed on March 23, 2000.

Signatures:  /s/ Daniel Cullen, President
             -----------------------------


            /s/ Gilles Trahan, Secretary
            ----------------------------
#### § 4.03-70 Tank vessel.

*Tank vessel* means a vessel that is constructed or adapted to carry, or that carries, oil, hazardous substances, marine pollutants, or noxious liquid substances, in bulk as cargo or cargo residue.

[USCG-2000-6927, 70 FR 74676, Dec. 16, 2005]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of MCF
Corporation on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, D. Jonathan Merriman and John D. Hiestand, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



February 11, 2004



/s/    D. JONATHAN MERRIMAND. Jonathan Merriman Chairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/    JOHN D. HIESTANDJohn D. Hiestand Chief Financial Officer
# C_2011282EN.01004001.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/40

---

Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Axa Mediterranean v Commission

(Case T-405/11)

2011/C 282/75

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Axa Mediterranean Holding, SA (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and M. Muñoz de Juan, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Admit and uphold the request for the taking of evidence; |
| --- | --- |

—

Admit and uphold the request for the taking of evidence;

| — | admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in this application; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in this application;

| — | annul Article 1(1) of the Decision insofar as it declares that Article 12(5) of the Spanish Law on corporation tax comprises elements of State aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(1) of the Decision insofar as it declares that Article 12(5) of the Spanish Law on corporation tax comprises elements of State aid;

| — | alternatively, annul Article 1(1) of the Decision insofar as it declares that Article 12(5) of the Spanish Law on corporation tax comprises elements of State aid when applied to shareholding acquisitions that involve acquisition of control; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul Article 1(1) of the Decision insofar as it declares that Article 12(5) of the Spanish Law on corporation tax comprises elements of State aid when applied to shareholding acquisitions that involve acquisition of control;

| — | alternatively, annul Article 4 of the Decision insofar as it applies the recovery order to transactions concluded prior to publication in the OJEU of the final Decision to which this action refers; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul Article 4 of the Decision insofar as it applies the recovery order to transactions concluded prior to publication in the OJEU of the final Decision to which this action refers;

| — | alternatively, annul Article 1(1) and, alternatively, Article 4 of the Decision insofar as it refers to transactions carried out in Mexico and Turkey, and |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul Article 1(1) and, alternatively, Article 4 of the Decision insofar as it refers to transactions carried out in Mexico and Turkey, and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against Commission Decision C(2010) 9566, of 12 January 2011, on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions.

The pleas and main arguments are those already put forward in Case T-399/11, Banco de Santander and Santusa Holding v Commission.

---
The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern *

District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3800WM

_____________

Dawn E. Coary, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster General, *

United States Post Office, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: March 13, 1998

Filed: March 18, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and EISELE, District Judge. *

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Dawn E. Coary appeals the district court's order dismissing Coary's disability

discrimination complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Because we

agree with the district court's conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.