alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1)    | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-167613) pertaining to the 2005 Incentive Compensation Plan of DHT Holdings, Inc., |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                       |
|   | (2)    | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-175351) pertaining to the 2011 Incentive Compensation Plan of DHT Holdings, Inc., |
|   |   |                                                                                                                       |
|   | (3)    | Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-176669) of DHT Holdings, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, and                  |
|   |   |                                                                                                                       |
|   | (4)    | Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-166765) of DHT Holdings, Inc. and in the related Prospectus;                      |
### Faulk. Scott (OST)

Cc: Subject: Schlemmer , Kevi n (OST) Tuesday , June 17 , 2014 2 :46 PM Je rry O ' Sull ivan ; JefCKm i ec @ Greenbri er . co m ; JohnsonLowe l l @su ddenlin k
. n et ; bdcrookshan ks @ frontiernet.net Faulk, Scott (05T) RE : EA5 Preference From: Sent: To:

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged

, - . . ) Tha n ks , Jerry. -Kevin From: Jerry O ' Sullivan [ m a il to :je rrvos u l l @ aol
. com ] 

### Sent: Tuesday, June 

### 17,2014 1:01 PM To: Schlemmer, Kevin COST); J eff Kmiec @ G reenbrier
. com ; J o h n son Lowe l l@ s udde nlin k .n et ; bd crooks h anks @ f ront i ernet
. net; j erryosull @ ao l.com 

### Subject: EAS Preference Kevin , In response to your request for our choice of a i r service for Greenbrier Valley Airport , I reviewed the opt i ons ava i lable for our new Essential A i r Service contract , beginning in August 20 1 4 wi t h the Greenbri er County Airport Authority , and based on greater seat numbers and excellent mid-day timing of the two daily flights to Dulles on Silver A i rways , verses the service offered by Citi Link Air to P i ttsburgh , and the A i rport Authority passed a resolution to request conti ~ uation of Silver Airways. Thank you for your help i n this process . . Jerry O'Su l livan , Airport Manager Greenbrier Valley Airport

1
Order entered December 3, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00651-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.M. AND R.M., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-52721-07

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart

We DENY appellant’s November 17, 2015 motion to suspend enforcement of the 

judgment as premature and without prejudice to refiling if necessary after any rule 24.2(a)(4) 

hearing in the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(4); McGee v. Ponthieu, 634 S.W.2d 780, 

781-82 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1982, no writ.).

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Case 3:05-cr-05823-RJB Document 110 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cr-05823-RJB Document 110 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 66561.

#### Old Importers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/3182 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic bells similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65709, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 60 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 60

   To commend students who have participated in the William Randolph 
     Hearst Foundation Senate Youth Program between 1962 and 1997.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 4, 1997

Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Wyden, and Mrs. Hutchison) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To commend students who have participated in the William Randolph 
     Hearst Foundation Senate Youth Program between 1962 and 1997.

Whereas the continued success of our Nation's constitutional democracy is 
        dependent upon our Nation's youth striving toward higher goals;
Whereas a student's intelligence, determination, perseverance and continued 
        interest in the workings of our Nation's political processes must be 
        nurtured and encouraged;
Whereas the pursuit of higher education, and participation and interest in the 
        political processes, remain priorities of young citizens around our 
        Nation; and
Whereas the United States Senate and the William Randolph Hearst Foundation 
        Senate Youth Program have provided high school juniors and seniors who 
        are leaders in education and student government, as well as in their 
        communities, with the opportunity to travel to their Nation's capital 
        and witness the political process, supported solely by private funds 
        with no expense to the Federal Government since the program's inception 
        in 1962: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate hereby congratulate, honor, and pay 
tribute to the 3,600 exemplary students who have been selected, on 
their merit, to participate in the William Randolph Hearst Foundation 
Senate Youth Program between 1962 and 1997.
                                 <all>
```
| FIRST:  | The name of the limited liability company is Aspen Diversified Fund LLC (the “Company”).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| SECOND: | The address of the Company’s registered office in the State of Delaware is 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 in the county of New Castle.  The name of the Company’s registered agent is The Corporation Trust Company.                                                                                                                                        |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| THIRD:  | The debts, obligations and liabilities of the Company, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, shall be solely the debts, obligations and liabilities of the Company; and no member or manager of the Company shall be obligated personally for any such debt, obligation or liability of the Company solely by reason of being a member or acting as a manger of the Company. |

|   | By:    |   /s/ Jeremy L. Standrod    |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Jeremy L. Standrod, Authorized Person |   |

----
March 25, 1957

No. 60587.

Suit 4871.

#### United States *v.*Henry Greenberg & Bros. Export & Import Co., Inc.

C. D. 1755 reversed January 9,1957. C. A. D. 636.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROMOND WATSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

the Social Security Administration,,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5801 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AFFIRMING

COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Magistrate Judge J. Kelly Arnold recommends that the Court should conclude that Mr.

Watson was properly denied social security benefits because application of the proper legal standard

and substantial evidence support the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that Plaintiff was not

disabled absent the effects of his alcohol addiction. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report

and Recommendation.

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, the Report and Recommendation, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The administrative decision is AFFIRMED, and

Case 3:05-cv-05801-FDB Document 26 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant’s

counsel and Magistrate Judge J. Kelly Arnold.

DATED this 15th day of September, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05801-FDB Document 26 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Order Continuing Trial

PHIL BRENNAN, Esq.

P.O. Box 22837

Seattle, WA 98122

(206) 372-5881

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISCTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff,

v.

MAURICE DERUFF POSEY, 

 

 Defendant.

NO. CR 06-5456 RBL

Order Continuing Trial Date

Order

Maurice Posey moves the Court to continue his currently scheduled trial date

of 2/20/07 to a new date some time up to and including 8/31/07. The Government

does not oppose this motion. Mr. Posey bases this motion on his desire to allow

himself and his attorney more time to review the evidence, the applicable law, and

continue settlement negotiations. The Court finds these reasons persuasive and

GRANTS Mr. Posey’s motion. The Court finds:

1. The ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

2. Proceeding to trial absent adequate time for the defense to prepare would

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(i).

3. The defense needs additional time to explore all relevant issues and

defenses applicable to the case, which would make it unreasonable to expect

Case 3:06-cr-05456-RBL Document 31 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Order Continuing Trial

PHIL BRENNAN, Esq.

P.O. Box 22837

Seattle, WA 98122

(206) 372-5881

2

adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for trial itself within the time limits

established by the Speedy Trial Act and currently set for this case. 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B(ii).

Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a continuance is necessary

to allow the defendant the reasonable time for effective preparation his defense. See

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from

February 20, 2007 until JUNE 11, 2007 @ 9:00 am. The resulting period of delay

from February 20, 2007 to June 11, 2007 is hereby excluded for speedy trial

purposes under 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(A) and (B). Pre-trial motions are due no later than May 7, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2007.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/___________________________

Phil Brennan, 2/2/07; Atty for Mr. Posey

I do not oppose this Order:

/s/ per email approval to Mr. Brennan on 2/2/07

Kent Liu, AUSA

Representing the Government

Case 3:06-cr-05456-RBL Document 31 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 13,593.

#### SULIVAN v. BROWNE.

[2 Wash. C. C. 204.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. Term, 1808.

Pkactice at Law — Rule to Trt.

Where no declaration or plea has been filed, a rule to try or non pros, cannot be enforced.

In this suit, which was marked for trial at a preceding term, though neither declaration nor plea was filed; a rule to try or non pros, was entered.

Meredith now moved to enforce the rule, and read a case from Dallas’s Reports in the supreme court of Pennsylvania, in which the rule was enforced, though no plea was put in.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard refers, Jr., Esq.]

BY THE COURT.

The rule is in the alternative, that the plaintiff shall try the cause, or be nonsuited. He has a right to say he will try, rather than be nonsuited; and how can we accept his offer to try, when the cause is not in a state for trial? To say that he shall be nonsuited, unless he do what the court will not permit, is to take away the alternative. Were the plaintiff to offer to file a declaration now, still the cause could not be tried without a rule to plead, and a plea filed, and jury struck, or venire issued; but under another rule of this court, made in 1800, all rules to plead, are to be given from month to month in the clerk’s office; and were we to allow a rule to be taken here, we should violate that rule.

Meredith then moved for a rule on defendant to plead in a month.

' BY THE COURT. As the rule laid down in 1806, seems strangely to have been neg*349lected, or may not generally have been known, we will permit this innovation on the standing rule, during this term; but in future motions of this sort will be refused.
### Attachment3



## CERTIFICATION

I hereby certifythat GE has notified all refrigerator manufacturers listed below know to GE to sell products in the United States and forwarded them a copy ofthis waiver:

AGA Marvel Arcelik A.S. BSH Home Appliances Corporation Danby Products, Ltd. Electrolux Home Products NA FagorAmerica, Inc. Fisher

### &Paykel Appliances GE Appliances HaierAmerica LG Electronics USA Liebherr-Canada Ltd. MC COMMERCIAL INC. (Mabe Canada) Miele, Inc. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Panasonic Consumer Electronics Co. Scotsman Ice Systems Sub-Zero, Inc. U-Line Corporation Viking Range Corporation Whirlpool Corporation

In addition, GE has provided courtesy copiesto: The Association of HomeAppliance Manufacturers (AHAM), which generally is interested in DOE proceedings affecting the industry. ACEEE, NRDC and Allianceto Save Energy are not manufacturers but have

an interest i iciency requirements for appliances.
Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator 

USEP A, Region 10 

Mail Code RA -140 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, W A 981 01 

RE: SIP Elements for 2010 S02 and N02 NAAQS Under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(2) 

Dear Mr. McLerran: Please find the enclosed documentation that demonstrates Idaho's State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for "interstate transport" elements under section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

The Idaho Depmtment of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is submitting documentation that 

Idaho's SIP contains provisions addressing all the requir'ements of the CAA Section 

11 0( a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide and 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide NAAQS. 

A public comment period was held as required by 40 CFR 51.102 beginning November 20,2015 

through December 21, 2015. The public hearing was held on December 21, 2015. No comments 

or testimony were received during the comment period. The state followed all of Idaho's 

procedural requirements for this SIP submission. 

Attached is a document entitled "Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan for 2010 N02 

and 2010 S02," that demonstrates how Idaho does not impact the maintenance or attainment 

these NAAQS in smTounding states. Also included as appendices are copies of the "Certificate 

of Hearing" certifying no members of the public attended the hearing, copies of the public notice 

published in the Idaho Statesman and on DEQ's website. 

If you have any further questions or would like additional information, please contact 

Tiffany Floyd, at (208) 373-0552 or Tiffany.Floyd@deq.idaho.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Director 

Enclosure 

cc: Tiffany Floyd, Air Quality Administrator 

Pr1nted on Recvcted Paper
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

EVERGREEN WASHINGTON

HEALTHCARE FRONTIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendant.

NO. C06-783 JLR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The court having been notified of the settlement of this matter and it appearing that no

issue remains for the court’s determination,

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

In the event settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case,

provided such motion is filed within 60 days of the date of this order. Any trial date and

pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED. 

DATED this 8th day of May, 2007.

AJAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00783-JLR Document 30 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 1
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

TIMOTHY C. CLARK JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, CASE NUMBER: C06-5208RJB/KLS 

Commissioner of Social Security

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury

has rendered its verdict.

 X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or

heard and a decision has been rendered.

 The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. This matter is REVERSED and remanded to the

Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.

 March 30, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

 Clerk

/s/Dara L. Kaleel 

By Dara L. Kaleel, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05208-RJB Document 25 Filed 03/30/07 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 773 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 30, 2007.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3867) to update and expand the procurement programs of the Small 
Business Administration, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small 
Business. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions of the bill are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 3867 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                         358,389
<SECURITIES>                                   348,458
<RECEIVABLES>                                  334,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,803
<INVENTORY>                                    164,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,374,973
<PP&E>                                         596,424
<DEPRECIATION>                                 364,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,028,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          417,847
<BONDS>                                         98,744
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,214
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,509,538
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,028,343
<SALES>                                      1,793,376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,793,376
<CGS>                                          898,894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  898,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               260,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (35)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,459
<INCOME-TAX>                                    60,824
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (43,365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       12,018
<NET-INCOME>                                  (55,383)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
No. 65279.

#### Aut Customs Brokers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/18313 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.