alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Categorical Exclusion Acronym List

Acronyms Name

ABS Automatic Block Signals

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AHU Air Handling Unit-HVAC

Amtrak Stations and Routes https://www.amtrak.com/train-routes

APP Application

ASDP Amtrak, Accessible Stations Development 

Program

BG Bridge

BGMS Bridge Maintenance

BGSG Bridge Signals

BGTI Bridge Timber Replacement

BGUG Bridge Upgrades

BLST Ballast

BMS Building Management System

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe

BWI Amtrak Station, Baltimore/Washington Int. 

Thurgood Marshall Airport, MD

C&S Code and Standard

CCTV Closed Circuit TV

CNOC Consolidated National Operations Center-Amtrak 

Wilmington, DE

CP Canadian Pacific Railway

CSX CSX Transportation

CTEC Centralized Electrification and Traffic Control

CUS Chicago Union Station

DRAN Drainage

EMY Amtrak Station, Emeryville, CA

ENV Environmental

EPMO Enterprise Program Management Ofice

EQIV/EQUIV Equivalent

FD Final Design

FREQ Frequent

GCAP Generalized Circuit Analysis Program

HDSW Hardware Software

HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

INT Interlocking

JOP Amtrak, Joplin Union Depot, MO

KCS Kansas City Southern
LAX Los Angeles Union Station, CA

LBP Lead Based Paint

LNC Amtrak Lancaster, PA

MFW Main Feedwater

MOFE Maintenance of Equipment

MoW/MOFW Maintenance of Way

MP Mile Post

NEC Amtrak, Northeast Corridor

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NS Norfolk Southern

NYP Moynihan Train Hall, Penn Station, NYC

PHL Philadelphia

PIDS Passenger Information Display System

PPDS Production Planning and Detailed Scheduling

PTC Positive Train Control

RAD Radio

RFQ Request for Quotation

RTU High-Efficiency Rooftop Unit

S&I Service and Inspection

SAP (software) Systems Applications and Products, Software

SAP (station) Amtrak Santa Paula, CA

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SGR/SOGR State of Good Repair

STA Station

STIP State Transportation Implementation Plan

SUB Under

SWHT Switch

SYS System

TAMS Train Approach Messaging System

TKRH Track Infrastructure Upgrages

TOWR Tower

TRRA Terminal RR Association, St. Louis

TUN Tunnel

TURN Turnout

UP Union Pacific

WALL Retaining Wall

WAS/WAU Washington, DC Union Station

XING Crossing

XINR Crossing Not Required

YD Yard
# C_2008043EN.01000301.xml

| 16.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 43/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 February 2008

(2008/C 43/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4674 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 157,78 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4544 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,74780 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3140 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6022 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 98,23 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9255 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,224 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 263,59 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,5900 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6445 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,019 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7603 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6189 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4635 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,4454 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8602 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0734 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 386,77 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,2647 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,5396 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2575 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 456,06 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7272 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,723 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,0742 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,663 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5757 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,7900 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4674

JPY

Japanese yen

157,78

DKK

Danish krone

7,4544

GBP

Pound sterling

0,74780

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3140

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6022

ISK

Iceland króna

98,23

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9255

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,224

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

263,59

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

PLN

Polish zloty

3,5900

RON

Romanian leu

3,6445

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,019

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7603

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6189

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4635

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,4454

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8602

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0734

KRW

South Korean won

1 386,77

ZAR

South African rand

11,2647

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,5396

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2575

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 456,06

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7272

PHP

Philippine peso

59,723

RUB

Russian rouble

36,0742

THB

Thai baht

46,663

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5757

MXN

Mexican peso

15,7900

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Declaration of principles and practices of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (International)

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Declaration of principles and practices of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (International) 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Internal Revenue Service 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  United States. Internal Revenue Service 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Series Title        
                    -  Document ; 7448 A (5-90); Document (United States. Internal Revenue Service) ; 7448 A. 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  155 × 39 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  022467448.jpg; 022467448.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
A90A0940.

#### PHILLIPS et al. v. PERMANENT GENERAL CLAIMS SERVICE et al.

(393 SE2d 721)

Decided April 19, 1990.

*James R. Jester,*for appellants.

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The appellants, Betty Phillips and Herbert Edwards, were injured in an automobile collision involving the automobile owned and driven by Edwards, and commenced this action to recover PIP benefits from the Tennessee insurers that issued a policy of insurance covering Edwards’ car. At the time the policy was issued, Edwards was a Tennessee resident, but at the time of the automobile collision he was living and working in Georgia. The appellees were never informed of this change of residence. The appellees defended on the basis that because none of the appellees was authorized to transact insurance in Georgia and none had done so, the appellees were not required to provide PIP benefits under OCGA § 33-34-1 et seq. This appeal follows from the trial court’s denial of the appellants’ motion for summary judgment and grant of the appellees’ motion for summary judgment. *Held:*

Under OCGA § 33-34-3 (a) (2), all insurers authorized to transact business or transacting business in Georgia must include in automobile liability insurance policies the minimum no-fault coverages. OCGA § 33-34-3 (a) (3) provides that “[njothing contained in this Code section shall be deemed to prohibit a nonadmitted insurer not otherwise required by paragraph (2) of this subsection to provide the minimum benefits ... for its insured motorists who are involved in motor vehicle accidents in this state. ...” Under these two Code sections, an insurer not authorized to transact insurance in Georgia and not transacting insurance in Georgia may, but is not required to, provide PIP benefits.

The appellants misplace their reliance upon *Freeman v. Ryder Truck Lines,*244 Ga. 80, 82 (259 SE2d 36) (1979), in which the Supreme Court held that “a vehicle registered in another state is nevertheless subject to the provisions of our no-fault Act, at least where its own no-fault law is not applicable,” as that case involved the obligation imposed by OCGA § 33-34-4 on an owner of a vehicle operated in this state to obtain insurance, and not the duty of foreign insurers not transacting insurance in Georgia. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the appellees.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope and Beasley, JJ., concur.*

*427
      *McClain & Merritt, William S. Sutton,*for appellees.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM A. BAUER, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

14 USCMA 597, 34 CMR 377

No. 17,416

June 5, 1964

*Fred W. Shields,*Esquire, and *Lieutenant Colonel John R. DeBarr,*USMC, were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Major J. M. Detrio,*USMCR, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

This is a companion case to United States v Rogers, 14 USCMA 570, 34 CMR 350. This accused was tried separately. Unlike Rogers, however, he was convicted of premeditated murder. The board of review modified the findings of guilty, as it did in the *Rogers*case, by reducing them to involuntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 919, and decreased the period of confinement to three years.

We granted the accused’s petition for review to consider principally issues dealing with the sufficiency of the evidence to support the modified findings of guilty and allegedly perjured testimony. The issues and the evidence relating to them were discussed at length in our opinion in the *Rogers*case and need not be restated here, except to add that in a pretrial statement Bauer said Ford was “wearing a under shirt” in the fight on the beach; that “after a while” he thought Ford “was dead”; then he and Rogers dragged Ford to the ocean and “threw” him in. We have examined the record of trial and are satisfied that no errors prejudicial *598to this accused were committed, and that the decision of the board of review is soundly based and legally unassailable. We affirm that decision.

Judge KlLDAY concurs.

FERGUSON, Judge

(concurring in the result):

I concur in the result.

As noted by the Chief Judge, this is a companion case to United States v Rogers, 14 USCMA 570, 34 CMR 350, this day decided. Bauer, however, was tried separately from Rogers, and the proceedings against him are not infected with the errors present — in my opinion- — in the latter’s case. The question of the voluntariness of Bauer’s confession was, at the instance of his individual civilian counsel, decided solely by the law officer, and no issue arose concerning further examination of the witness, Private First Class Williams. The evidence of record is clearly sufficient to support the findings of guilty affirmed by the board of review, and the other assignments do not warrant further treatment.

I, therefore, join with my brothers in affirming the decision of the board of review.
# C_2007269EN.01003301.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/33

---

Action brought on 29 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-401/07)

(2007/C 269/56)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to implement, with regard to Fleuren Compost BV, Commission Decision 2001/521/EC of 13 December 2000 on the aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of the Netherlands for six manure-processing companies (1) within the period laid down therein, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to implement, with regard to Fleuren Compost BV, Commission Decision 2001/521/EC of 13 December 2000 on the aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of the Netherlands for six manure-processing companies (1) within the period laid down therein, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

1

| — | order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Decision 2001/521 the Commission decided that the Netherlands should recover from Fleuren Compost BV (‘Fleuren’) unlawful aid in the amount of EUR 487 328,13, plus interest. At the time when the application was lodged in this case, the resultant sum had not yet been repaid. So far, Fleuren has merely provided a bank guarantee for the sum. The applicant submits that this is contrary to Article 13(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2), which provides for immediate and effective execution of the Commission's decision. Moreover, by judgment of 14 January 2004 the Court of First Instance dismissed Fleuren's action against the decision (Case T-109/01) and Fleuren has not appealed against that judgment.

2

The applicant submits, inter alia, that the Netherlands legislation in question, as interpreted by the Netherlands Raad van State, makes execution unnecessarily complicated and time consuming. According to that interpretation, the principal sum is to be recovered in an administrative proceedings but interest is to be recovered in civil proceedings. The applicant submits also that the provision of a bank guarantee cannot be compared to the actual repayment of the amount of aid. A bank guarantee does not undo the financial advantage that Fleuren has enjoyed for years as a result of the fact that the defendant has paid aid to Fleuren without the Commission's approval, contrary to Article 88(3) EC.

inter alia

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 189, p. 13.

1

(2)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

2

---
Case No: 6,856a.

#### In re HULL et al.

[See Case No. 6,856.]
No. 58153.

protest 215427-K (New York).

#### Wine Specialists Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record showing the motion to be well founded, the protest was dismissed as untimely.
A90A0537.

#### VINEYARD v. THE STATE.

(395 SE2d 49)

Carley, Chief Judge.

After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of arson in the first degree. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdict.

1. The admission into evidence of appellant’s confession is enumerated as error. The contention is that it was induced by a hope of benefit and was, therefore, involuntary.

A polygraph examiner testified that he had told appellant that a certain detective was the person who could “help” him. Appellant relies upon this testimony as evidence that his confession was involuntary and inadmissible. When read in context, however, it is clear that the examiner was merely testifying that he had told appellant that he was not involved in the prosecution of the case and that questions should be directed to the detective. The examiner never indicated that the detective would do anything to benefit appellant, and both the examiner and the detective testified that they did not offer appellant any hope of benefit or reward. In fact, appellant’s only testimony in this regard is that he was told that if someone else started the fire and he provided such information, there would be a reward. “While OCGA § 24-3-50 prohibits the introduction of a statement induced ‘by the slightest hope of benefit,’ the hope contemplated must be induced by another. [Cit.] . . . The trial court’s findings regarding factual determinations and credibility when considering the admissibility of a confession will be upheld on appeal unless- clearly erroneous. [Cit.] . . . [W]e find no error in the admission of the statement.” *Bryant v. State,*193 Ga. App. 840, 841 (2) (389 SE2d 405) (1989).

2. Appellant enumerates the general grounds, urging that the evidence is insufficient to authorize a finding that, under the circumstances, it was “reasonably foreseeable that human life might be endangered.” OCGA § 16-7-60 (a) (5).

The fire was set in a carpet plant where appellant was employed. At the time the fire was set, the plant was occupied by several employees. Although a wall separated the employees from the actual fire, they were in close proximity thereto and toxic smoke filled the area. *789“This evidence clearly established the reasonable foreseeability of danger to human life. . . .” *Bell v. State,*249 Ga. 644, 646 (2) (292 SE2d 402) (1982). “[T]his constituted serious endangerment of life, and the jury, under the standard of *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) [(1979)], could rationally determine beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed this act.” *Sweet v. State,*191 Ga. App. 516, 520 (8) (382 SE2d 376) (1989).

Decided May 29, 1990.

*Ralph M. Hinman III,*for appellant.

*Jack O. Partain III, District Attorney, Kermit N. McManus, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9045 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to exempt entities subject to taxation 

under section 528 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from certain 

beneficial ownership reporting requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2024 

Mr. MCCORMICK (for himself, Mr. LOUDERMILK, and Mr. WEBER of Texas) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to exempt entities 

subject to taxation under section 528 of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 from certain beneficial ownership 

reporting requirements. 

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 ‘‘Community Associa5 tion Reporting Exemption Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION. 

7 Section 5336(a)(11)(B)(xix) of title 31, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9045 IH

1 (1) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) in subclause (III), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the 

4 end; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(IV) entity subject to taxation 

7 under section 528 of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986;’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Case: 2:11-cv-01150-MHW-TPK Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/12/12 Page: 1 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-01150-MHW-TPK Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/12/12 Page: 2 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-01150-MHW-TPK Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/12/12 Page: 3 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-01150-MHW-TPK Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/12/12 Page: 4 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-01150-MHW-TPK Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/12/12 Page: 5 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T20:28:47-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Exhibit
32.1



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 Empire Global Gaming, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Nicholas Sorge, Sr., as Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:



|(1) | The
    Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    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: May
    4, 2016 |  | /s/
    Nicholas Sorge, Sr.      
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|                      |  | Chief
    Executive Officer      
|                      |  | (Principal
    Executive Officer)



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2008057EN.01000401.xml

| 1.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4987 — IBM/Cognos)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 57/03)

On 24 January 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4987. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4987. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---