alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IRC Handout Draft April 21, 2021

Part 1 Fiscal Year 2021 Reporting

SUPPLEMENT SECTION IV

USSGL ACCOUNT ATTRIBUTE DEFINITION REPORT

Attribute

Name 

Attribute

Short 

Name 

Attribute 

Definition Domain

System 

Characters Reference

Supplied

By 

Disaster 

Emergency 

Fund Code

DEFC Distinguishes whether the 

budgetary resources, obligations 

incurred, unobligated and 

obligated balances, and outlays 

are classified as disaster, 

emergency, wildfire suppression 

or none of the three. Note - Once 

one of the three has been 

identified, the title 

"Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression", for example, will be 

replaced with the actual title 

identified by OMB such as 

"Emergency PL 115-56."

A - Emergency PL 115-56

B - Emergency PL 115-72

C - Emergency PL 115-123

D - Emergency PL 115-254

E - Emergency PL 116-20

F - Emergency PL 116-26

G - Emergency PL 116-93

H - Disaster PL 116-93

I - Emergency PL 116-94

J - Wildfire Suppression PL 

116-94

K - Emergency PL 116-113

L - Emergency PL 116-123

M - Emergency PL 116-127

N - Emergency PL 116-136

O - Nonemergency PLs 116-

136, 116-139, and 116-260 

(Division N)

P - Emergency PL 116-139

Q - Non 

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression

R - Emergency PL 116-260 

(Divisions A-L)

S - Disaster PL 116-260

T - Wildfire Suppression PL 

116-260

U - Emergency PL 116-260 

(Division M)

V -

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression Nonemergency 

PL 117-2

W -

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression

X -

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression

Y -

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression

Z -

Disaster/Emergency/Wildfire 

Suppression

1/A OMB 

Guidance/TFM

Bulk File
# C_2018005EN.01003501.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2017 — Teeäär v ECB

(Case T-555/16) (1)

1

((Civil service - ECB Staff - Career transition Support - Lack of competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a party - Rules of sound administration in the management of staff - Material and non-material damage))

(2018/C 005/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Raivo Teeäär (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: initially, L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, and subsequently, L. Levi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. Malfrère and K. Kaiser, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the ECB’s decision of 18 August 2014 rejecting the applicant’s application for career transition support and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 18 August 2014 rejecting Mr Raivo Teeäär’s application for the career transition support put in place by that institution; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 18 August 2014 rejecting Mr Raivo Teeäär’s application for the career transition support put in place by that institution;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-86/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

**PursuantTo 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**asAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Wei Zhou, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of INTAC International, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(the “Act”) that to my knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(a)           TheAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended September 30,2005, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

(b)           Informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:     December 16,  2005 |                                   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                                        |                                   | /s/ WEI ZHOU |   |
|                                                        |                                   | Wei Zhou |   |
|                                                        | President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |

 

 

This certification isbeing furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Act, and shallnot be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theExchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.

 

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 7, 2017

NO. 03

- 16

- 00254

- CV

Michael Morath, in his Official Capacity as Texas Commissioner of Education; and Michael Berry, in his Official Capacity as Deputy Commissioner o f Education, Appellant

v.

Progreso Independent School District, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

REVERSED AND RENDERED

— OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an app eal from the order signed by the district court on April 1, 2016 . Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the

court’s order . Therefore, the Court reverses the district court’s order and renders judgment

dismissing PISD’s claims

. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this

Court and the c ourt below.
Before the Third Division,

August 13, 1948

No. 52501.

petition 6597-R (El Paso).

#### Ralph F. Waltermire Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the customs broker testified that the plaintiff had furnished all the documents from which to prepare entries and the information on which the brokers based their values was the best they had at the time; that it developed later from an investigation by customs agents that the sellers had been selling similar merchandise in Mexico at a price higher than the price charged to various customers in the United States; that a request for information was submitted to the appraiser and same was returned with the notation “Foreign Investigation Pending”; that he nevertheless entered at the invoice values, expecting to amend, but that he did not have an opportunity to do so. From the entire record it was held that the petitioner, in making entry in this case, acted without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
PLAINTIFF

VS.

DEFENDANT

CIVIL ACTION NO.

DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 72-2 Filed 06/19/2003 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court No. DA 1 9

- 0648

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ANDREW PIERCE LAKE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is

given an extension of time until November 14 th , 2020 to prepare, file and serve the

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 15 2020

10/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0648
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 115 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 115

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to provide for an operation on a live donor for 
 purposes of conducting a transplant procedure for a veteran, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 12, 2017

  Mr. Heller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to provide for an operation on a live donor for 
 purposes of conducting a transplant procedure for a veteran, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Transplant Coverage Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE FOR OPERATIONS ON LIVE DONORS FOR 
              PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING TRANSPLANT PROCEDURES FOR 
              VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter VIII of chapter 17 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 1788. Transplant procedures with live donors and related 
              services
    ``(a) In General.--In a case in which a veteran is eligible for a 
transplant procedure from the Department, the Secretary may provide for 
an operation on a live donor to carry out such procedure for such 
veteran notwithstanding that the live donor may not be eligible for 
health care from the Department.
    ``(b) Other Services.--The Secretary shall furnish to a live donor 
any care or services before and after conducting the transplant 
procedure under subsection (a) that may be required in connection with 
such procedure.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 17 of such title is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 1787 the following new item:

``1788. Transplant procedures with live donors and related services.''.
                                 <all>
```
(V. D. 42)

Entry No. 12261, etc.

#### D. P. Bushnell *&*Co. et al. *v.*United States

(Decided October 3, 1956)

*Stein & Shostak (Marjorie M. Shostak*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

These matters are presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *D. P. Bushnell & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 336, Abstract 59706. The judgment entered therein stated: *“*** * that the matters be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)

The matters have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values are as set forth in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, net packed.

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

The actions having been abandoned insofar as all other items of merchandise are concerned, to that extent they are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

May 13, 1959.

No. 63032.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 320350-K, 320351-K, and 320352-K (New York).

*371Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of negative eyepieces, which are photographic lenses, and the items marked “B” consist of parts of photographic cameras, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: The items marked “A” at 25 percent under the provision in paragraph 228, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), for photographic lenses and the items marked “B” at 20 percent under paragraph 1551 as parts of photographic cameras, not specially provided for.
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-15-2005

Kozlowski v. Scura

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-3595

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Kozlowski v. Scura" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 838.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/838
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-3595

 

THEODORE KOZLOWSKI,

 Appellant

 v.

JOHN SCURA; RAFAEL MARTE;

ELIZABETH MARTE

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

D.C. Civil No. 04-cv-02005

District Judge: The Honorable William J. Martini

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 1, 2005 

 

Before: ROTH, RENDELL, and BARRY, Circuit Judges

 

(Opinion Filed July 15, 2005)

 

OPINION

 

BARRY, Circuit Judge

The Bankruptcy Court issued an order on May 2, 2002 imposing sanctions
 The Bankruptcy Court issued its opinion on April 3, 2002; the corresponding order, 1

however, was not entered until May 2.

2

against Theodore Kozlowski in an amount to be determined in subsequent proceedings.1

On December 30, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order fixing the amount of

sanctions at $5,800.46, based upon the attorneys’ fees, expenses, and/or damages incurred

by the Debtors and the Standing Trustee.

On January 8, 2004, Kozlowski filed a notice of appeal. The District Court

dismissed the appeal as “procedurally barred, and an untimely attempt to relitigate matters

finally adjudicated in Judge Gambardella’s May 2, 2002 order.” App. 3. 

We will reverse. An order imposing sanctions does not become appealable until

the court fixes the amount of the sanctions. See In re Jeanette Corp., 832 F.2d 43, 46 (3d

Cir. 1987) (holding that “[i]f the sanctions are to be an assessment of counsel fees or

expenses, they must be fixed before the order is final and appealable”). Here, the

Bankruptcy Court’s sanctions award did not become appealable until the amount was

fixed on December 30, 2003. Kozlowski’s appeal was, therefore, timely.
#### Laura HICKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IRVING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7350.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 15, 1993.

Laura Hickey, pro se.

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of appellees to recall the Court’s mandate, 976 F.2d 980 (1992), vacate its opinion and uphold the trial court’s judgment dismissing this case is DENIED. We, however, express no opinion on appellees’ contention that appellant failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under 20 U.S.C. § 1400, *et seq.,*the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). As appellees correctly point out, they were not served with the complaint and were not made parties below.

Accordingly, the district court, on remand, may reconsider its 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal not only in light of the timeliness of Hickey’s complaint, but also examine whether Hickey exhausted her administrative remedies under IDEA. *See*20 U.S.C. § 1415(f).
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 137 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 137 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 137 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 3 of 3
# C_2017402EN.01003201.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2017 — Murka v EUIPO (SCATTER SLOTS)

(Case T-704/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark SCATTER SLOTS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 402/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Murka Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: S. Santos Rodriguez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2016 (Case R 471/2016-1), concerning the application for registration of the word sign SCATTER SLOTS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Murka Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Murka Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

1

---
No. 51937.

#### Black Knight China, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 48004-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose anything that would warrant the court in disturbing the finding of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
## Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK) Home | About Us | Science | Product Library | News & Events | Staff | Students |


# Study results show trout hybridization.

( /

)
In the western US, all 14 subspecies of native cutthroat trout degradation and fragmentation, nonnative species introducti o introductions, and has contributed to the decline and extincti o Hybridization with introduced salmonids is probably the great empirical studies predict that hybrids between WCT and rain b local adaptations may not be readily apparent. Furthermore, t to spread even when hybrids have reduced fitness. Although the upper Flathead River system in Montana and Br i existence of these populations is threatened by hybridization spread of hybridization in the upper Flathead River. However, hybridization remain poorly understood in the natural environment. Scientists at NOROCK and their partners at the University of Montana, Montana State University, and Montana Fis h study to identify the potential impacts of hybridization on fitness of native trout, scientists used paternity analysis success of approximately 800 trout in Langford Creek, a stream in the Flathead drainage. For the first time scientists evaluated how various levels of human-mediated hybridization affect fitness of native t hybridization markedly reduced fitness of male and female trout, with reproductive success sharply declining by a p however, data suggest that hybridization may spread due to relatively high reproducti ve success of first-generatio genes. These results suggest that many inland native cu tthroat trout in western North America may be at greater The long term impact of trout hybridization between nati ve and non native trout is unknown, though scientists fea occur, resulting is the loss of unique genetic and ecologic al adaptations. This study has broader implications beyo n similar complex genetic and policy issues surrounding hybridiz ation, such as the Scottish wildcat, red wolves, Flori readily adapted to these species. Currently, there is no official policy for dealing with hy brids under the Endangered Species Act. The most contenti o species, and these issues have been addressed on a case -by-case basis. The study results shows that fitness can q hybridized populations may need reconsideration. Results from the study are currently featured in the March 2009 edition of the Biology Letters in print and online. C ( http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/ 2009/03/13/rsbl.2009.0033.full.pdf+html ) to view the recently published article. More information about this project can be found at http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/hybrid_trout( http://nrmsc.usgs. g For more information contact: 

### Study results show trout hybridization. | Northern Rocky Mountain Scien... http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/science/feature/hybrid_trou t

1 of 2 4/20/2016 4:48 PMClint Muhlfeld 406-888-7926 cmuhlfeld@usgs.gov ( mailto:cmuhlfeld@usgs.gov ) 

### Study results show trout hybridization. | Northern Rocky Mountain Scien... http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/science/feature/hybrid_trou t

2 of 2 4/20/2016 4:48 PM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

KATHERINE LIGHT : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4357

:

vs.

:

HOTLINE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, :

SEUNG JO KWAK

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO ARBITRATION AND APPOINTING ARBITRATORS

AND NOW, this day of March, 2003, it is hereby 

ORDERED, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 4(a), that the above civil action is herewith

referred to arbitration and 

Chairman AUTHERINE SMITH, ESQ.

Arbitrator PETER LEVIN, ESQ.

Arbitrator CLAYTON THOMAS, ESQ.

having been selected at random by the arbitration clerk from among those certified as arbitrators, shall hear this case at

9:30 am, Thursday, March 13, 2003. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ARBITRATION HEARING WILL BE HELD

IN THE ROBERT N.C. NIX BUILDING, 900 MARKET ST., PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107. REPORT TO ROOM

339 FOR YOUR ROOM ASSIGNMENT, pursuant to a notice which shall this day be mailed by the arbitration clerk

to all counsel of record and the arbitrators, the arbitrators being authorized to change the time and date of the arbitration

hearing provided the hearing is commenced within 30 days of the hearing date set forth in this order (continuances beyond

this 30 day period must be approved by the court) and the clerk of court is notified of the change; and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED, that all documentary evidence shall be marked in advance and exchanged,

except for impeaching documents; and that the above designated chairman shall file with the clerk of court the arbitration

award after the hearing is concluded.

The failure of counsel to promptly advise the arbitrators and the Arbitration Section of the Clerk's

Office of the settlement or other final disposition of this case may result in appropriate discipline by the Court pursuant

to Local Civil Rule 83.6.1.

BY THE COURT

 

HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE 

 

ARB1.FRM 

Case 2:02-cv-04357-TJS Document 22 Filed 03/10/2003 Page 1 of 1
No. 61777.

#### The Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc. v. United States,

protests 239292-K, etc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

FELIX D. WHITTINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD VAUGHN, et al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION

 NO. 02-4346

O R D E R

 

AND NOW, this 9th day of April, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that the

attached letter shall be filed by the Clerk.

BY THE COURT:

 

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04346-MK Document 71 Filed 04/09/2003 Page 1 of 1