alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Public Hearing for the 

GRIC Department of Environmental Quality 

Proposed Air Quality Tribal Implementation Plan 

I 

Date: 5~ 23 , 0 Time: 

Location: _r) i* '& Lt- %(CQ cQ&p+ 

CHECK-IN AND SIGN-IN 

All attendees pleaseJiI1 in the information below. 

NAME: M.'cl\d 8. Ks~ . - 

AFFILIATION: L a+ J I v bv 

ADDRESS: p.~, db9 2~210 E-MAIL: ,,-cl,~k~ lQ b.e~. COC, 

ol JQS 

OILC..A\L 731~b PHONE: 60 30x - LX QQ 

FAX: &1) 749 - 7 /SJ- - 

- 

* 

AFFILIATION: bb%Zs? %&%w 

E-MAIL: mm @ &WW. 

PHONE: fGO2-\%--544% 

FAX: \b02\ -+m - Slyq L 

NAME: A I AFFILIATION: QU, /, c 

ADDRESS:_G)-L, p &1 -L E-MAIL: mCI,, , L, C, 

%,a, 

-" r t 

a n. PHONE: 1- I 

k 4lgSddy FAX: 

AFFII ,IATIoN: ~tn vlec + #rod\! 

E-MAIL: ufi~ @! 4 wm ('(9 h 

PHONE: @OZ -ZZY ' - 5n + 

FAX: 

NAME: {%,-\ AFFILIATION: -*+- 

ADDRESS:-&- L~ E-MAIL: 

2 N Y-+?-\. &- PHONE:&> a

- ,- - .5,2vfi 

FAX: 

NAME: mde5 &firer\ AFFILIATION: 

ADDRESS: q0 u, J~DD desf E-MAIL: 

Nor& L1.r Ckla %Yo54 PHONE: 

FAX: 
AFFII JATION: C 5'P'Ewccjc~t 

E-MAIL: ,dwh- - J')ZK/CIS 

PHONE: * 6 stc (43 7- 7 33-3 

FAX: 6s r -- 937-2 2&, 

 NAME:^ AFFILIATION: Uf wA &? 

ADDRESS: 3~ N. C~WA~~ ~bd - E-MAIL: L, wi-4 e + B7~~5-lc) A=* 833~s"- PHONE: A32 1622 

q33-z FAX: 520 7-93 2373 

NAME: GlI- fi- AFFILIATION: us 

ADDRESS: ~addpclzo~Yc E-MAIL: AC/<& -. w p~a.sehl 

PHONE: SU 49 $3 o(t8 

FAX: . 4953 f333 

NAME: &W;M &&Qr AFFILIATION: 

ADDRESS: d?sa t Lf@fJ; P ~II-g E-MAIL: 

rn 

~OCPA~~X. A% PHONE: 

FAX: 

NAME: -~ '~~E:R&L/ . , CL Cr f AFFILIATION: kc^ -- .S&-A ZmC 

ADDRESS: /oJr/s5', ky/&y@ E-MAIL: TCWC Oh fd~Jd 6- *CCIZY 

c&d/4~ .AZ a~* PHONE: pa ,q96- 7633 

LcP FAX: ~j&?d- 496. ?'/ 3- 

NAME: ~~~~ AFFILIATION: &;\L f2j\l~ %A-Q- f h~ 

ADDRESS: 4.0. %s 9- E-MAIL: 

- %W7 PHONE: (~b) q(F - 21 bb 

3 FAX: ~EJ-) . Lt( k- 311b 

NAME: AFFILIATION: 

ADDRESS: E-MAIL: M 

b PHONE: 

FAX: 

ADDRESS: 

NAME: AFFILIATION: 

E-MAIL: ~IC~I 

6 

S~ rotnlc. row b PHONE: 520 7qb -(oa~5 

d 

"0 

FAX: 6-rn 7qb 14 
NAME:F;RE?D R I hlG~ AFFILIATION: 

ADDRESS: E-MAIL: 

PHONE: 

FAX: 

NAME: AFFILIATION: 

ADDRESS: E-MAIL: 

PHONE: 

FAX: 

AFFILIATION: 

E-MAIL: 

PHONE: 

FAX: 

\ c 6~&ce\ NAME: >m~~o L . mott, 41 - AFFILIATION: G, \& &\I is Ka(~-a cboqba 

E-MAIL:\ePrL4Lgtko/\. b7 a ,ccR"r 

PHONE:~$O~ , $[>a. -7 o 9 

FAX: dl& I 

NAME: E2q awn 'RQ~ AFFILIATION: c ~0 , wden LUOL.U~/ 

ADDRESS: 2ib S, ROO~EVELT*. %W E-MAIL: 6Ky- recd@<qn'c .n&n.uS ' 

TZpe, A?, PHONE: dm-6~-%00 I FAX: 

NAME: AFFILIATION: 

ADDRESS: E-MAIL: 

PHONE: 

FAX: 

NAME: AFFILIATION: 

ADDRESS: E-MAIL: 

PHONE: 

FAX: 

NAME: AFFILIATION: 

ADDRESS: E-MAIL: 

PHONE: 

FAX:
Hon. Paul H. Brown Opinion No. v-a.24

Fire Insurance Commissioner Land Office Building Be: Austin, Texas Recessitg of refunding fees paid for renewal 

### 0r agency licenses upon refusal to renew the licenses.
Dear Col. Brown:

You have asked for the opinion of this office on the following:

"This Department, under 5062b, Section 10, is engaged in issuing renewal licenses to lnsurante agencies throughoutTexas. These egents send thel~renewal'eppilcati-ons ~lnto- this Depa~rtment;generally accompaniedby the fee of $1.00. In some instanceswe refuse to issue the renewal license. The to refund the 8uestion occurs:Are we required

1.00 sent in?" Sections 8 and 10 of Article 5062b,Vernon's Civil Statutes, provide as follows:

"Sec.

### a. Every license issued to a local RecordingAgent or Solicitor shall expire on the first day of March eachyear, unless an application to qualify for the renewal of any such license shallbe filed with the Board of Insurance Co&ssionersand fee paid on or before suchdate, in which event the license sought to be renewed shall continue in full force and effect until renewed or renewal Is refused.
~.'~ "S86.. 10. An appllc,antfor the renewal of a Local RecordingAgent's license or for the renewal of a Sollcltor*s license shall pay, at the time the renewalapplication is filed, a fee of one ($1.00) Dollar." The question asked can be answered only by arrivingat the'int,ention of ttre Legislature as manifested in Sect1ons.S ?$ndlO~.of Article 5062b. It is our opinion

,,.~ .,,Hon. Paul H. Brown, page 2 (v-824)

that the Legislature Intended for the one dollar fee provided for in theArticle to be primarilya filing fee coverfng the charge for the filing of any renewelapplication for a Local RecordingAgent’s ,licenseor a Solicitor’s llcerise.We are further of ths opinion that It 1s not necessary to refund the one dollar fee paid by an applicantwhose lioenee is not renewed.

‘Itis riot

necessary to refund the one($l.OO) dollar fee~~paid

under the provisions of Section 10 of Artiole 5062bby a person applying fPf the renewal of a Local RecordingAgent’s or a Solicltar’s licensewhose lioense is not renewed by the Board of InsuranceCommissioners.
Yours very truly ATTORNKIGERERAL OF TKKAS 

# By %:ti Assista&

APPROVED:rfFn-aw FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY dEBfERAL CBK/rt:jrb
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the annual report of China Xiniya Fashion Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officer’s knowledge:

 

|   | (1)    | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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. |

  

 

Date: April 28, 2015

 

| By:          | */s/ Qiming Xu*         |   |   |
|--------------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Name:   | Qiming Xu               |   |   |
| Title:  | Chief Executive Officer |   |   |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
No. 47450.

#### Protests 909439-G, etc., of Case & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of BioLineRx Ltd. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to such officer’s knowledge that:





(i)    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated: March 23, 2015




/s/ Kinneret Savitsky


Kinneret Savitsky, Ph.D.


Chief Executive Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 10.99.2
 
  AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT
        
  (No., Street, County, and Zip Code)
  
   (See Item 11) (See Item 13)
    o o o
 (if required)
    (Specify authority),
 (such changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)
  (Specify type of modification and authority)
  E. IMPORTANT: o x
 (Organized by UCF section headings, including
solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
   (Type or Print)
 (Type or Print)
 (
     STANDARD FORM 30




---



##### 



SF30 Continuation of Block Narrative




---



##### 



SCHEDULE




---



##### 



SCHEDULE
# C_2007269EN.01001903.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), lodged on 2 August 2007 — SOBO Sport & Entertainment GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-359/07)

(2007/C 269/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SOBO Sport & Entertainment GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting and lotteries, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage and advertise participation in other gaming — such as State-run sports betting and lotteries — and, moreover, other games with the same or even higher potential danger of addiction — such as betting on certain sporting events (horse racing), slot machines and casino games — may be provided by private service providers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting and lotteries, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage and advertise participation in other gaming — such as State-run sports betting and lotteries — and, moreover, other games with the same or even higher potential danger of addiction — such as betting on certain sporting events (horse racing), slot machines and casino games — may be provided by private service providers?

| 2. | Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by the competent State bodies of the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts in other Member States as well without any additional national authorisations being required? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by the competent State bodies of the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts in other Member States as well without any additional national authorisations being required?

---
No. 48002.

#### Protests 635028-G, etc., of A. Rosen & Sons, Inc. (New York).

*394Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the protests were sustained as to certain of the items.
# C_2007199EN.01003401.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2007 — Lopparelli v Commission

(Case T-502/04) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotions procedure - Award of promotion points)

(2007/C 199/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Stéphane Lopparelli (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for the annulment of the decision awarding promotion points to the applicant in respect of the 2003 promotions procedure and of the decision not to enter his name on the list of officials promoted to grade A5 under that procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 10531)

#### Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 139, etc.

(Decided June 6, 1963)

*Sharretts, Paley é Garter*for the plaintiff.

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

OliveR, Chief Judge:

These three appeals for reappraisement are before me for decision on a written stipulation reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise consists of seamless steel casing, exported from Italy, and that the facts and the law are similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *United States*v. *Dalminter, Inc., R. W. Smith,*47 Cust. Ct., page 577, A.R.D. 135.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in A.R.D. 135 be incorporated with the record in this case.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices at which such or similar imported merchandise were freely offered for sale for consumption in the United States, packed ready for delivery, in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers, at the time of exportation of the imported merchandise, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, were the prices shown on Schedule A hereto attached less 2 percent cash discount less 5.211 percent for general expenses and 2.744 percent for profit less ocean freight and inland freight as stated on the invoices less duty of 7% percent on casing Grade J-55 or 7% percent plus 4 percent on easing Grade N-80.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals be submitted on this stipulation.

*493On the agreed facts and consistent with the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the seamless steel casing in question is United States value, as defined in section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and hold that such statutory value for the present merchandise is the prices set forth in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, less 2 per centum cash discount, less 5.211 per centum for general expenses and 2.744 per centum for profit, less ocean freight and inland freight, as stated on the invoices, less duty of U/2 per centum on casing grade J-55 or *7y2*per centum, plus 4 per centum, on casing grade N-80.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Order entered July 2, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00323-CR

MARCUS WAYNE HARPER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-81699-2018

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s July 1, 2019 second motion for extension of time to file 

his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief due on or before July 31, 2019. 

Appellant is cautioned that the failure to file his brief by that date may result in the appeal being 

abated for a hearing under appellate rule 38.8(b)(3). TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(3).

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7412

JEFFREY BRIAN COHEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WILLIAM D. QUARLES, JR., U.S. District Judge , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Ellen L. Hollander , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 02943

- ELH )

Submitted : May 31, 2017 Decided: June 8, 2017

Before NIEMEYER , WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Jeffrey Brian Cohen , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Brian Cohen appeals the district court’s order s dismissing his civil action
and denying Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district

court. Cohen v. Quarles , No. 1:16

- cv - 02943

- ELH (D. Md

. Filed Aug. 31, 2016 & ente red Sept. 1, 2016; filed & entered Oct. 4, 2016) ; see also Penn

- Am. Ins. Co. v. Coffey , 368 F.3d 409, 412 (4th Cir. 2004) (discussing considerations relevant to district court’s exercise of discretion to adjudicate claim for declaratory relief implicating related proceedings)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
March 30, 1944

No. 49313.

Suit 4434.

#### P. *Beiersdorf & Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 718 reversed February 7, 1944. C. A. D. 267.
Re: Questions on I540 project Ryan F. Brown

to:
Jesse Pritts

05/16/2011 12:58 PM

Show Details

History: This message has been replied to.

Hey Jesse,

Ive attached a file (Nov 16-17 Summary of Samples I 540 NCDOT.docx) similarly as before with all of the information you wanted. I assumed you wanted bot h the inlet and outlet information on both basins.

Also, if the question comes up, there are more times the samplers on the inlet and outlet of basin 3 tried to take samples than what was actua lly obtained physically. This was more than likely due to low flows during these times and there not being enough of a pool for the sampler to purge from.

Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks!

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:48 AM, < Pritts.Jesse@epamail.epa.gov > wrote:

Thank you Ryan. I have one more quest ion - can you provide the date/time of each aliquot and the turbidity of each bottle for 11/16-11/17 sampling event as well?

Thanks

From: "Ryan F. Brown" < ryanfbrown@gmail.com >
To: Jesse Pritts/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/13/2011 01:09 PM Subject: Re: Questions on I540 project

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 9:55 AM, < Pritts.Jesse@epamail.epa.gov > wrote: Thanks Ryan for the responses to my questions. I have two quick follow-up questions:

1. The table of turbidity values lists "Turbidity" and "Corrected Turbidity". Could you elaborate on the difference?

The turbidity is the actual value from the machine. The corrected turbidity includes a calibration factor which is developed by a standard curve. The calibration factor is developed about ever month usin g Page 1 of 3

5/23/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ jp ritts\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web2670.htm
yearID sourceTypeID sourceTypePopulation

2015 11 120 2015 21 2424 2015 31 1766 2015 32 589 2015 41 4 2015 42 2 2015 43 26 2015 51 3 2015 52 123 2015 53 16 2015 54 29 2015 61 55 2015 62 70
No. 45081.

#### Protests 990731-G, etc., of Peter Schneider’s Sons & Co., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kjncheloe, J.

When these cases were called for trial the importers either failed to appear or submitted the protests upon the records without introducing any testimony in support of the claims made. The records disclosing no error in the action of the collector the protests were overruled.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10248

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSIMAR BADILLO-ORTIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-236-3

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Josimar Badillo-Ortiz has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Badillo-Ortiz has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to 

allow us to make a fair evaluation of Badillo-Ortiz’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10248 Document: 00513805086 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
No. 16-10248

2

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Badillo-Ortiz’s response. In his response, BadilloOrtiz disputes the drug quantity for which he was held accountable. BadilloOrtiz’s trial counsel did not object to the drug quantity at sentencing. Because 

drug quantity is a factual finding, and Badillo-Ortiz failed to properly object in 

the district court, Badillo-Ortiz’s drug quantity challenge cannot succeed on 

plain error review. See United States v. Conn, 657 F.3d 280, 284-86 (5th Cir. 

2011). We therefore agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents 

no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-10248 Document: 00513805086 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
Exhibit 23.2








Consent of Independent Auditors





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:


|    |                                                                                       
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-184466) of The Howard Hughes Corporation, and

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-170431, Form S-8 No. 333-170432, Form S-8 No. 333-171909, and Form S-8 No. 333-171910) pertaining to the 2010 Amended and Restated Incentive Plan of The Howard Hughes Corporation;




of our report dated March 15, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of DLV/HHPI Summerlin, LLC, included in this Form 10-K/A - Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Howard Hughes Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2018.








/s/ Ernst & Young LLP





Dallas, Texas


March 15, 2019