alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[104th Congress Public Law 256]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ256.104]

[[Page 110 STAT. 3170]]

Public Law 104-256
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
  construction of 2 hydroelectric projects in North Carolina, and for 
         other purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 9, 1996 -  [H.R. 2773]>> 

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

    (a) Project Numbered 10812.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the time period specified 
        in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that 
        would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
        Commission Project No. 10812, the Commission shall, at the 
        request of the licensee for the project, and after reasonable 
        notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and 
        public interest requirements of that section and the 
        Commission's procedures under that section, extend the time 
        period during which the licensee is required to commence the 
        construction of the project, under the extension described in 
        paragraph (2), for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods.
            (2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on 
        the date of the expiration of the extension of the period 
        required for commencement of construction of the project 
        described in paragraph (1) that the Commission issued, prior to 
        the date of enactment of this Act, under section 13 of the 
        Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).

    (b) Project Numbered 6879.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the time period specified 
        in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that 
        would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
        Commission Project No. 6879, the Commission may, at the request 
        of the licensee for the project, and after reasonable notice, in 
        accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public 
        interest requirements of that section and the Commission's 
        procedures under that section, extend the time period during 
        which the licensee is required to commence the construction of 
        the project for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods.
            (2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect on 
        the date of the expiration of the period required for 
        commencement of construction of the project under the license 
        for the project.

    Approved October 9, 1996.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2773:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-510 (Comm. on Commerce).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):
            Apr. 16, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 27, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 8964)

Entry Nos. 8069; 9959; 11084.

#### Adolph Goldmark & Sons Corp. *v.*United States

(Decided August 15, 1957)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

Richardson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision on the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel that the merchandise covered by the instant appeal for reappraisement consists of licorice tid bits exported from England.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation there was no foreign, export or United States value, as those terms are defined in Section 402 (c) (d) or (e) respectively of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for such or similar merchandise and that the cost of production as defined in subdivision (f) of said Section 402 was 102 shillings 6 pence.

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

*624On the agreed facts, I find the cost of production as defined in 19 U. S. C. section 1402 (f), (section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930), to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein, and that such value was 102 shillings, 6 pence.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2017006EN.01002201.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Sasol Germany GmbH

(Case C-468/15 P P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1138/2011 and (EU) No 1241/2012 - Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(10)(i) - Adjustment - Functions similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis - First subparagraph of Article 2(10) - Symmetry between the normal value and the export price - Principle of sound administration))

(2017/C 006/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocate), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, Agents), Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Sasol Germany GmbH

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

1

---
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program

##### U.S. Geological SurveyScientific Investigations Map 2962

# Land-Cover Change in the Southern Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, 1940-2002

### *By* Christian G. Raumann

#### 2007

The Lake Tahoe basin has been subject to significant landscape-altering human activity since the mid-1850s; in particular, widespread timber harvest from the 1850s to 1920s and urban development from the 1950s to the present. The consequences of changes such as impacted water quality, degraded biotic communities, and increased fire hazard resulting from modern activity have prompted rising levels of concern for the ecological integrity of the region. The goal of this project is to map, quantify, and describe the spatial and temporal distribution and variability of historical changes in land use and land cover in the southern Lake Tahoe basin for the period from 1940 to 2002 in an effort to establish an understanding of regional landscape change. 

This map shows areas of land-use/land-cover change in a 279-km2 portion of the Lake Tahoe basin identified using change-detection analysis of multitemporal land-use/land-cover datasets for four dates (1940, 1969, 1987, and 2002), which yielded three periods for analysis. Land use/land cover was mapped using manual (visual) interpretation techniques in a geographic information system (GIS) from multiple imagery sources: black-and-white digital orthophotos for 1940 and 1969, natural-color digital orthophotos for 1987, and IKONOS multispectral satellite imagery for 2002. The landscape was classified using a 0.4-hectare (1-acre) minimum mapping unit and a hierarchical classification system. Impervious-surface data was derived directly from the 2002 IKONOS imagery on a per-pixel basis using digital image processing and GIS data integration. 

Download this map as a 32" x 48.5" PDF file (sim2962.pdf; 54 MB)

For questions about the content of this report, contact Christian Raumann (christian_raumann@urscorp.com)

Suggested citation and version history

----

Download a copy of the latest version of Adobe Reader for free.

| Help | PDF help | Publications main page || Western Scientific Investigations Maps || Geography | Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program   |

This report is available only on the Web

----

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey	URL: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2007/2962/	Page Contact Information: Michael Diggles	Page Last Modified: October 12, 2007

----
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------

                              UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
                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  Quarterly  Report of  United-Guardian,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Alfred R. Globus,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby 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  requirements 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  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  November 10, 2005                 /s/ Alfred R. Globus
                                         --------------------------
                                         Alfred R. Globus
                                         Chief Executive Officer
- 1 -

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

April 2, 2015

via email and regulations.gov

Brett Kruger

Division Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of Delta, Air France, and Shuttle America

For A Statement of Authorization

Docket DOT- OST-2000-6939

Dear Mr. Kruger:

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the 

application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg, DOT

 Bob Finamore, DOT

 Ben Taylor, DOT

info@airlineinfo.com
# C_2016419EN.01002401.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 — Trafilerie Meridionali SpA v European Commission

(Case C-519/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Fines - Setting of the fines - 2006 Guidelines for the setting of fines - Point 35 - Unlimited jurisdiction - Obligation to state reasons - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy within a reasonable time))

(2016/C 419/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Trafilerie Meridionali SpA (represented by: P. M. Ferrari and G. Lamicela, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Trafilerie Meridionali SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Trafilerie Meridionali SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

1

---
0 

j 

I 

SERVED: FEBRUARY 23, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-1118 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

GRANTING UNCONTESTED MOTION 

TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT 

(i·'"' 

By motion filed February 13,2015, 1 Respondent moves to extend, through March 25, 

2015, the time to answer the complaint. 2 Respondent states that Complainant has been contacted 

and "does not oppose a 30-day extension of time for Federal Express Corporation to file its 

Answer."3 For good cause shown, Respondent's motion is granted.4 Respondent's answer to the 

complaint may be filed on or before March 25, 2015. 

SO ORDERED. 

. . .-··--······i,-~} () /. 

·. ~-<2C-: '-.... ~ .. w_, ·-~ ,.~ ...... -• • • • • 

A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative~ dge 

Attachment- Service List 

1 FDMS Docket No. FAA-2014-1118, Doc. No.5, Uncontested Motion to Extend Time to Answer Complaint 

("Motion 5"). Unless otherwise stated, all document references are to FDMS Docket No. F AA-20 14-1118, available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=50;so=DESC;sb=postedDate;po=O;D=FAA-20 14-1 118, 

and all regulatory citations are to sections of 14 C.F.R. (2014). 2 Doc. No.2, Complaint. Because the complaint was served by mail on January 22, 2015, id. at 6, the answer 

now is due no later than February 26, 2015. See §§ 13 .209(a) (answer or motion due "not later than 30 days after 

service ofthe complaint"), 13.211(e) (5 days added to period for "any response within a prescribed period after service by mail"). 3 Motion 5, supra note 1, at 2. Thirty days after February 26, 2015, is Saturday, February 28, 2015. 4 § 13.213(-b). 
SERVICE LIST 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1118 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY (VIA MAIL) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10005 

ONE COPY (VIA MAIL, FOLLOWING CC BY FAX OR EMAIL, AS AVAILABLE) 

Greg G. Stofko, Respondent's Counsel 

Legal Department 

F edEx Express 

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Suite 950 

Washington, DC 20006 

TEL: 202-393-9285 

EMAIL: gregstofko@fedex.com 

Charles Raley, Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3357 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, ChiefAdministrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

5 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, 

et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-1036 

 Judge Watson 

 Magistrate Judge King 

SUNLIGHT TRANSPORT, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

ORDER 

 Upon joint motion, Doc. No. 12, the preliminary pretrial 

conference currently scheduled for January 24, 2013, is VACATED. The 

conference will be rescheduled, if otherwise appropriate, following 

resolution of the anticipated motion for summary judgment. 

 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: January 11, 2013 

Case: 2:12-cv-01036-MHW-NMK Doc #: 13 Filed: 01/11/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 10.13


 


Cooperation Contract for Microwave Therapy


 


Party A: Inner Mongolia Rongbin Health Consulting
Co., Ltd


 


Party B: Wu Yumei


 


I. Both Parties have, on the basis of equality
and free will, concluded this Contract through negotiation and shall abide by all provisions hereof.


 


II. Term of contract


 


Both Parties agree to determine the term of contract
as per the following manner, fixed term: from the date of signature until March 28, 2024, three years (36 months) in total.


 


III. Project requirements


 


1. Party B shall assure the safety of microwave
therapy done for customers of Party A.


 


2. Expenses for microwave therapy: Party B shall
sell the microwave therapy to Party A at the price of 999 Yuan/ 50 times.


 


3. Party A shall pay the expenses for microwave
therapy to Party B by cash or bank transfer.


 


IV. Modification, rescission and termination of
contract


 


(I) Both Parties shall be entitled to modify,
rescind or terminate this Contract under any of the following circumstances:


 


1. This Contract can be modified, rescinded or
terminated by both Parties through negotiation.


 


2. Legal basis for main clauses of this Contract
is invalid due to modification or alteration of any law or regulation applicable when this Contract is concluded.


 


3. Party A fails to pay the full-amount expenses
for microwave therapy in time, and fails to pay such expenses later than 3 months upon notification of Party B.


 


4. Party B is not competent to the microwave therapy
and is still incompetent through adjustment.


 


5. Party B violates any law, regulation or Party
A’s rules or regulations, or engages in gross negligence or malpractice, or causes great damage to Party A’s interests.


 


6. Party B fails to complete the therapy for Party
A’s customers and thus gives rise to serious influence, or refuses to make corrections upon request of Party A.


 


V. This Contract shall come into force as from
the date when the legal representatives or authorized agents of both Parties sign their names and affix seals on it. This Contract is
made in duplicate and each Party holds one copy.


 


VI. All matters unmentioned herein shall be negotiated
by both Parties and the supplementary agreement shall be signed. The supplementary agreement shall have the same legal effect with this
Contract.


 



     


     


    




 


Party A: Inner Mongolia Rongbin Health Consulting
Co., Ltd (seal)


 


Date: March 28, 2021


 


Party B: Wu Yumei (signature and fingerprint)


 


Date: March 28, 2021
Case No. *9,928.*

#### MUNROE v. COOKE et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 465.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1824.

Attachment — Amount of Debt — Affidavit.

In order to obtain an attachment under the Maryland act of 1795, c. 56, the affidavit must be positive as to the amount of the debt.

[This was an attachment by Robert Mun-roe against the effects of Samuel Robertson in the hands of Buffer Cocke and others. It was first heard as to the sufficiency of the attachment upon certain lands of the debtor conveyed by him to secure creditors. The deed was claimed* to be void. Case No. 9,-927.]

Attachment under the Maryland act of 1795,- c. 56 (1 Dorsey’s Laws, 320). The affidavit upon which the justice of the peace made his warrant to the clerk of this court to issue an attachment, states “that Samuel Robertson, not being a citizen of the District of Columbia, and not residing therein, is bona fide indebted to him, the said Robert Munroe, the sum of $2,053.37 over and above all discounts, and the said Munroe at the same time produces the account current which is hereunto annexed, by which the said Samuel is so indebted; and the said Robert likewise states that he has drawn on the said Robertson for the sum of $1,500, and also for the sum of $2,223.10, -which drafts, though not due, the said Robert understands from the said Robertson, and verily [believes] will not be paid, and further, that the latter draft for $2,223.10 hath never been accepted by the said Robertson, and the said Robert had therefore allowed no credit or discount for said drafts. He further states that said Robertson informed him, some time ago, that he would be entitled to a charge against said Robert’s account, for some loss that he expected would accrue in the sale of certain flour on their joint account; no account has been exhibited stating the amount of such loss, and therefore he had allowed said Robertson. in stating his account, no credit.” The warrant of the justice of the peace to the clerk of this court, says, “upon the receipt of this, together with the annexed proofs, you are required to issue an attachment against the goods and chattels, lands and credits of Samuel Robertson, and for so doing this shall be your warrant, as witness my hand and seal.” &c. Upon the return of the writ of attachment—

J. Dunlop, for plaintiff,

moved for judgment of condemnation.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Craneh, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(nem. con.) was of opinion, that judgment could not be granted, on account of the uncertainty and irregularity of the affidavit and warrant. Attachment quashed.
1The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

2The Honorable William R. Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1703

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Kevin Dewayne Mills, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 14, 1999

Filed: September 24, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and

BOGUE,1 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Dewayne Mills was tried by jury in the District Court2 and convicted on

one count of conspiracy to distribute approximately fifty ounces of cocaine base and

on one count of distribution of approximately one ounce of cocaine base. On appeal,
-2-

Mills argues that the District Court erred in allowing the government (1) to introduce

evidence that Mills had failed to contest the civil administrative forfeiture of $8,880

seized as a result of the execution of a search warrant and (2) to comment on that

evidence in closing argument. According to Mills, this evidence and comment violated

his constitutional right to remain silent.

Because at trial Mills did not object to the admission of the evidence in question

on the constitutional ground now asserted and made no contemporaneous objection to

the government's comment on the evidence, Mills has failed to preserve the issue for

appeal. Accordingly, we review only for plain error.

Having carefully considered the case, we conclude that the error, if any (a

question that we need not and do not decide), certainly was not plain error.

Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.