alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 52007BP0108(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007BP0108(01)

**1. European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2005, Section V - Court of Auditors (C6-0468/2006 - 2006/2074(DEC)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0163 - 00164 *

1.

European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2005, Section V — Court of Auditors (C6-0468/2006 — 2006/2074(DEC))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2005 [1],

- having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Communities for the financial year 2005 — Volume I (C6-0468/2006) [2],

- having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2005 and the Court of Auditors' special reports, together with the audited institutions' replies [3],

- having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors pursuant to Article 248 of the EC Treaty [4],

- having regard to Articles 272(10), 274, 275 and 276 of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities [5], and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

- having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A6-0107/2007),

1. Grants the Court of Auditors' Secretary-General discharge for the implementation of the Court of Auditors budget for the financial year 2005;

2. Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

[1] OJ L 60, 8.3.2005.

[2] OJ C 264, 31.10.2006, p. 1.

[3] OJ C 263, 31.10.2006, p. 1.

[4] OJ C 263, 31.10.2006, p. 10.

[5] OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

--------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
          AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Martin P. Gilmore, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

      (i) The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
      ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (ii) The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      LightFirst Inc.

                                     Date: May 17, 2004

                                     /s/ Martin P. Gilmore
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Martin P. Gilmore
                                     President, Chief Executive Officer, and
                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                     (Principal Executive Officer and Principal
                                     Financial Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2016-08913]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0402; FRL-9945-13-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan Requirements for Particle Matter, Ozone, Lead, 
Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide

Correction

    In rule document 2016-08913, appearing on pages 23175-23180 in the 
issue of Wednesday, April 20, 2016, make the following correction:
    On page 23177, in the first column, in the first paragraph 
following the table, lines 1-23, should read as follows:
    In the above table, the key is as follows:
A Approve
A* Approve, but conditionally approve aspect of PSD program relating 
to the identification of NOX as a precursor for ozone and 
addressing the changes made to 40 CFR part 51.116 in EPA's October 
20, 2010 rulemaking (75 FR 64864) concerning emissions of fine 
particulate.
D Disapprove, but no further action required because federal 
regulations already in place.
+ Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
NI Not included in the September 10, 2008 (PM2.5), 
January 2, 2013 (ozone and NO2), and May 30, 2013 
(SO2) submittals which are the subject of today's action.
NT Not taking action in today's action.
NS No Submittal.
NA Not applicable.

[FR Doc. C1-2016-08913 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4734 

To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to ensure services for home 

modifications under part B of title III of such Act may be used for 

certain purposes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2024 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WELCH, and Mr. HEINRICH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to ensure services for home modifications under part B of title III 

of such Act may be used for certain purposes, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Home Modifications 

5 for the Climate Crisis Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HOME MODIFICATIONS. 

7 Section 321 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 

8 U.S.C. 3030d) is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4734 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a)(4)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘or (D)’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘(D)’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘Urban Development;’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘Urban Development; (E) to provide 

6 the homes of older individuals with air-quality 

7 monitors and air-quality improvements, includ8 ing through ventilation upgrades and indoor 

9 pollutant source reductions like home elec10 trification and integrated pest management, to 

11 mitigate poor indoor air quality caused by gas 

12 appliances, pesticide application, and air pollut13 ants (as defined in section 302 of the Clean Air 

14 Act (42 U.S.C. 7602)); (F) to assist older indi15 viduals in modifying homes to ensure adequate 

16 cooling, heating, air quality, and energy effi17 ciency, prioritizing technologies that reduce 

18 greenhouse gas emissions, indoor pollution, and 

19 toxic substances; or (G) to assist older individ20 uals in obtaining assistance for utility and 

21 power expenditures through a program under 

22 the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act 

23 of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.) or any other 

24 program administered by the Secretary of the 

25 Interior or the Secretary of Energy;’’; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4734 IS

1 (2) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as 

2 subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and 

3 (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(d) Services authorized under subsection (a)(4) in6 clude such services with respect to homes that are— 

7 ‘‘(1) multi-family dwellings; 

8 ‘‘(2) rental homes, including rental units; or 

9 ‘‘(3) occupied by an older individual living with 

10 another resident who is not an older individual.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(A.R.D. 168)

Entry No. 839964.

#### The Hoenig Plywood Corporation *v.*United States

Third Division, Appellate Term

(Decided March 2, 1964)

*Sha/rp & Bogan*for the appellant.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee.

*620Before Donlon arid Richardson, Judges

NoNLON, Judge:

Appellant has formally withdrawn its application for review of the decision in *The Hoenig Plywood Corporation*v. *United States,*51 Cust. Ct. 336, Reap. Dec. 10569, which sustained the finding of dumping made by the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury as to certain hardboard exported from Sweden and entered at New York, and the values returned by the appraiser. Accordingly, the application for review is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1665

___________________________ Bernard Fraction, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. Douglas County Attorney's Office; Theresia M. Urich; Douglas County Treasurer's Office; John W. Ewing, Jr., Treasurer; Director of Public Properties;

Dennis Rookstool; Tim Dolan; Richard G. Kopf, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees .

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ Submitted: September 28, 2020 Filed: October 1, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Bernard Fraction appeals after the district court 1 dismissed his complaint for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is the plaintiff’s burden to establish the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and, on appeal, we review its existence de novo. See Newcombe v. United States , 933 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir. 2019). On careful review of the record and Fraction’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the complaint. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable John M. Gerrard, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. -2-
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ONEAL E. HAMM, Corporal, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 208, 39 CMR 208

No. 21,526

March 21, 1969

*Lieutenant Norman A. Wulf,*JAGC, USNR, and *Lieutenant Stephen W. Grafman,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Ray M. Druley,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted review in this ease to determine whether Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, had been complied with. The record reflects that, at the outset, a *pro forma*inquiry was made to determine whether the accused had been advised of his rights concerning counsel as set forth in Article 38(b) of the Code.

In United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, decided March 7, 1969, we held that this type of inquiry constituted *minimal*compliance with Article 38(b). However, as we stated in *Donohew:*

> “We believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that *the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 38(b), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder,*

> *209
>       *“Accordingly, the record in each special or general court-martial convened more than thirty days after the date of this*[Donohew] *opinion should reflect this requirement has been met.*United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.” [Emphasis supplied in part.]

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
No. 53603.

protests 96899-K, etc. (New York).

#### V. Casazza & Bro., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Order entered October 4, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00769-CV

LARRY K. ANDERS, Appellant

V.

CROSSFIRST BANK, A KANSAS STATE BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-05551-2018

ORDER

A sealed supplemental clerk’s record was filed in this appeal on September 

30, 2021. Included within the record is a copy of the trial court’s June 17, 2021 

“Agreed Order Regarding Sealed Records.” The order, as the title reflects, was 

signed based on the parties’ agreement. 

Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, court records are generally 

presumed to be open to the general public and may be sealed only upon motion and 

if certain conditions are met. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 76a. Among those conditions are 
that the movant must provide public notice, the trial court must hold a hearing on 

the motion in open court as soon as practicable, and the trial court must issue an 

order that complies with the requirements of rule 76a(6). See id. 76a(6). The trial 

court may issue a temporary sealing order in certain circumstances, but any 

temporary order must set the time for the required open court hearing and direct 

the movant to immediately give the public notice regarding the open court hearing. 

See id. 76a(5).

The sealing order filed here does not meet the requirements of either a 

temporary or final sealing order under Rule 76a and does not support the record 

being filed under seal. Although we could order the sealed record be unsealed, we 

determine the parties should be given an opportunity to obtain from the trial court a 

final order that complies with the requirements of Rule 76a. See TEX. R. CIV. P.

76a. The sealed record SHALL REMAIN UNDER SEAL for FORTY DAYS to 

allow the parties to (1) obtain such an order, (2) file written verification an order 

complying with Rule 76a was not signed, or (3) file redacted documents to protect 

sensitive information as contemplated under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.9. Should the trial court sign a Rule 76a sealing order, the order shall be filed in 

a supplemental clerk’s record no later than FORTY-FIVE DAYS from the date of 

this order. If the trial court does not sign a sealing order within the time 

prescribed, the Court will order the above-noted clerk’s record unsealed.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the 

Honorable Jill Willis, Presiding Judge of the 429th Judicial District Court; Collin 

County District Clerk Lynne Finley; and, the parties.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32(b)


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Form 10-QSB of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.
for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, I, William R. Talley, Jr., Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, 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 such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
31, 2004, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.


/s/ William R. Talley, Jr.
-----------------------------------------------------
William R. Talley, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

64–073 2000

106th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 106–226

AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE SUPREME

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE COURT, PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. 2075

MAY 2, 2000.—Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered

to be printed

(1)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, DC, April 17, 2000.

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: By direction of the Supreme Court of the

United States, I have the honor to submit to the Congress the

amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that

have been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to Section 2075 of Title 28, United States Code.

Accompanying these rules are excerpts from the report of the Judicial Conference of the United States containing the Committee

Notes submitted to the Court for its consideration pursuant to Section 331 of Title 28, United States Code.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST.

(3)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
Subject: Meeting with Holcim Cement to Discuss Portland Cement NESHAP

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

Date: November 3, 2009

Participants:

Holcim

Hector Ybanez, Holcim

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)

Keith Barnett, SPPD, OAQPS

Elineth Torres

Representatives of Holcim Cement met with EPA to discuss industry comments on the 

the ISIS Model.
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

1 The court also reminds defendant’s counsel that as of

January 4, 2005, local rules require all parties to electronically

file any documents or correspondences. Although the court accepted

defendant’s counsel’s response in this one instance, failure to

electronically file in the future may result in further sanctions.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a California

corporation,

NO. CIV. S-04-2534 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

MICHAEL CROW,

Defendant.

 /

Due to clerical error, the court’s May 9, 2005 order is hereby

VACATED. The court is in receipt of defendant’s counsel’s response

to the court’s April 22, 2005 order to show cause.1

No good cause being shown, counsel for defendant is 

sanctioned in the amount of one hundred and fifty ($150.00)

Case 2:04-cv-02534-LKK -DAD Document 18 Filed 05/13/05 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

2

dollars. This sum shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court no later

than thirty (30) days from the effective date of this order.

Counsel shall file an affidavit accompanying the payment of this

sanction which states that it is paid personally by counsel, out

of personal funds, and is not and will not be billed, directly or

indirectly, to the client or in any way made the responsibility of

the client as attorneys' fees or costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 12, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02534-LKK -DAD Document 18 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Basset Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report), I, Madam Zhu Xiaojuan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. Date: April 15, 2010 /s/ Madam Zhu Xiaojuan
 Chief Financial Officer
# C_2007019EN.01002101.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/21

---

Corrigendum to the Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 314 of 21 December 2006
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 314 of 21 December 2006

(2007/C 19/09)

On page 34:

for:

for:

| 'CENELEC | EN 55022:1994
  Limits and methods of measurement of radio disturbance characteristics of information technology equipment
  (CISPR 22:1993) | EN 55022:1987
  Note 2.1 | Date expired
  (31.12.1998) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Amendment A1:1995 to EN 55022:1994
  (CISPR 22:1993/A1:1995) | Note 3 | Date expired
  (31.12.1998) |
| Amendment A2:1997 to EN 55022:1994
  (CISPR 22:1993/A2:1996 (Modified)) | Note 3 | Date expired
  (31.12.1998) |
| Amendment A1:2000 to EN 55022:1998
  (CISPR 22:1997/A1:2000) | Note 3 | 1.8.2007 |
| Amendment A2:2003 to EN 55022:1998
  (CISPR 22:1997/A2:2002) | Note 3 | 1.8.2007' |

'CENELEC

EN 55022:1994

Limits and methods of measurement of radio disturbance characteristics of information technology equipment

(CISPR 22:1993)

EN 55022:1987

Note 2.1

Date expired

(31.12.1998)

Amendment A1:1995 to EN 55022:1994

(CISPR 22:1993/A1:1995)

Note 3

Date expired

(31.12.1998)

Amendment A2:1997 to EN 55022:1994

(CISPR 22:1993/A2:1996 (Modified))

Note 3

Date expired

(31.12.1998)

Amendment A1:2000 to EN 55022:1998

(CISPR 22:1997/A1:2000)

Note 3

1.8.2007

Amendment A2:2003 to EN 55022:1998

(CISPR 22:1997/A2:2002)

Note 3

1.8.2007'

read:

read:

| 'CENELEC | EN 55022:1994
  Limits and methods of measurement of radio disturbance characteristics of information technology equipment
  (CISPR 22:1993) | EN 55022:1987
  Note 2.1 | Date expired
  (31.12.1998) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Amendment A1:1995 to EN 55022:1994
  (CISPR 22:1993/A1:1995) | Note 3 | Date expired
  (31.12.1998) |
| Amendment A2:1997 to EN 55022:1994
  (CISPR 22:1993/A2:1996 (Modified)) | Note 3 | Date expired
  (31.12.1998)' |

'CENELEC

EN 55022:1994

Limits and methods of measurement of radio disturbance characteristics of information technology equipment

(CISPR 22:1993)

EN 55022:1987

Note 2.1

Date expired

(31.12.1998)

Amendment A1:1995 to EN 55022:1994

(CISPR 22:1993/A1:1995)

Note 3

Date expired

(31.12.1998)

Amendment A2:1997 to EN 55022:1994

(CISPR 22:1993/A2:1996 (Modified))

Note 3

Date expired

(31.12.1998)'

---
Case 2:04-cv-02548-DFL-DAD   Document 19    Filed 09/27/05   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-21T16:31:55-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO