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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 128 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 128

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT AUTHORIZED.

    (a) In General.--A commemorative document in memory of the late 
President of the United States, Gerald Rudolph Ford, shall be printed 
as a House document, with

              

 illustrations and suitable binding, under the direction of the Joint 
Committee on Printing.
    (b) Contents.--The document shall consist of the eulogies and 
encomiums for Gerald Rudolph Ford, as expressed in the Senate and the 
House of Representatives, together with the texts of each of the 
following:
            (1) The funeral ceremony at Palm Desert, California.
            (2) The state funeral ceremony at the rotunda of the United 
        States Capitol.
            (3) The national funeral service held at the Washington 
        National Cathedral in the District of Columbia.
            (4) The interment ceremony at the Gerald Ford Presidential 
        Museum, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

SEC. 2. PRINTING OF DOCUMENT.

    In addition to the usual number of copies printed of the 
commemorative document under section 1, there shall be printed the 
lesser of--
            (1) 32,500 copies, of which 22,150 copies shall be for the 
        use of the House of Representatives and 10,350 copies shall be 
        for the use of the Senate; or
            (2) such number of copies that does not exceed a production 
        and printing cost of $600,000, with distribution of the copies 
        to be allocated in the same proportion as described in 
        paragraph (1).

            Passed the House of Representatives May 22, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 128

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Authorizing the printing of a commemorative document in memory of the 
       late President of the United States, Gerald Rudolph Ford.
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [SGA/DFA-PY 06-04] 

# AGENCY:

Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor. 

# ACTION:

Notice: Amendment to SGA/DFA-PY-06-05. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Employment and Training Administration published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on April 20, 2007, announcing the availability of funds and solicitation for grant applications (SGA) for the housing assistance portion of the National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP), under section 167 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. This notice is an amendment to the SGA and it amends the Application and Submission Information section to correct the Funding Opportunity Number.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Stockton, Grant Officer, Division of Federal Assistance, at (202) 693-3335. 

*Supplementary Information Correction:*                         In the                         **Federal Register**                         of April 20, 2007, in FR Doc. E7-7497. The second paragraph, sixth (6th) line under “Submission Dates and Times” (page 19969). “Reference SGA/DFA PY 04-07 is amended to read”, “Reference SGA/DFA PY 06-05.”                     

*Effective Date:*                         This notice is effective April 27, 2007.                     

Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April, 2007. 

James W. Stockton, 

Grant Officer.

 [FR Doc. E7-8107 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
No. 41966.

#### Protest 150873-G of Salem Shawiry (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Normandy laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
# Official Journal C 318/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 318 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 649 August 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 318

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 649 August 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 318/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10305 — CDPQ/DWS/Ermewa) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 318/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10305 — CDPQ/DWS/Ermewa) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 318/02 | Euro exchange rates — 6 August 2021 | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 318/02

Euro exchange rates — 6 August 2021

2

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TONI PATRICK,

 Appellant,

v.

BOLD ROOFING CO., 

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00148-CV

Appeal from

193rd District Court

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC # DC-14-06390)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is the joint motion of Appellant, Toni Patrick, and Appellee, 

Bold Roofing Company, to vacate the trial court’s judgment. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2). The 

motion is granted. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is set aside and the cause is remanded 

to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The motion 

does not address costs. Accordingly, costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellant. See

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d)(“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the 

appellant”).

July 8, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Case: 2:13-cv-00047-EAS-MRA Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/19/13 Page: 1 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00047-EAS-MRA Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/19/13 Page: 2 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00047-EAS-MRA Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/19/13 Page: 3 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00047-EAS-MRA Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/19/13 Page: 4 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00047-EAS-MRA Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/19/13 Page: 5 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00047-EAS-MRA Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/19/13 Page: 6 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:13-cv-00047-EAS-MRA Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/19/13 Page: 7 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T16:50:44-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:13-cr-130

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP

BRENDA SCHWENDEMAN, 

Defendant.

ORDER

On June 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant Schwendeman’s guilty plea

to Count One of the Information charging her with embezzlement of $4,648.45 from the United

States by virtue of her employment with the United States Postal Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 641. Defendant, represented by counsel, waived her right to appear on the matter before a District

Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from coercion, and had a basis

in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of her right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:13-cr-00130-GCS Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/18/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Information. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty

of embezzlement of $4,648.45 from the United States by virtue of her employment with the United

States Postal Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:13-cr-00130-GCS Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/18/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS. : No. 2:12-MJ-00004

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP

WYTEIA RAMONT WEBSTER

O R D E R

It appearing that Defendant Wyteia Ramont Webster has

now been arrested by agents of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation in Kissimmee, FL, on Friday, January 6, 2012 , and

is therefore no longer a fugitive, the United States Attorney is

hereby granted leave to file a dismissal of the complaint filed

with the United States Magistrate against the named defendant. A

certified copy of this Order shall be the authority of the United

States Marshal and other persons concerned to act in the

premises.

_________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:12-mj-00004-TPK Doc #: 4 Filed: 01/10/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2016059EN.01005202.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/52

---

Action brought on 23 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-151/15)

(2016/C 059/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the survivor’s pension and for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of 13 or 14 April 2015 refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the survivor’s pension; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of 13 or 14 April 2015 refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the survivor’s pension;

| — | So far as necessary, annul the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 15 June 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

So far as necessary, annul the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 15 June 2015;

| — | Order the payment of compensation in respect of material harm suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the payment of compensation in respect of material harm suffered by the applicant;

| — | Order the payment of compensation in respect of the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 5 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the payment of compensation in respect of the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 5 000;

| — | Order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL A. HEARTSMAN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden; XAVIER 

BECERRA, 

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 18-16110 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-06098-VC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Michael A. Heartsman appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, see Smith v. Ryan, 

823 F.3d 1270, 1278 (9th Cir. 2016), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-16110

Heartsman contends that the trial court committed misconduct by favoring 

the prosecution and exhibiting bias against the defense. We need not address 

appellee’s contention that the claim is procedurally defaulted because it fails on the 

merits. See Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2002). None of the 

claimed instances of misconduct suggest the trial court harbored “deep-seated 

favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. 

United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). The state court’s rejection of this claim, 

therefore, was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly 

established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 

362, 411 (2000).

We treat appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the 

certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-

1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****United States, Alaska southcoast, Cook Inlet, Anchor Point to Kalgin Island**
 
1985:pdf | jpg
1990:pdf | jpg
 
SuDoc:C 55.418/7:16661/
Item Number:0191-B-15
CGP systemNumber:000918959
 
December 11, 2017
Inspire 1 Pro In the Box

Inspire 1 Pro Quick Start Guide

Safety Guidelines and Disclaimer 

Intelligent Flight Battery Safety Guidelines 

© 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved. 

INSPIRE 1 PRO

Harness ×1

(Complementary)

Carrying Case ×1

(Complementary)

Camera with Gimbal Box ×1

(Complementary)

Aircraft Body ×1 Remote Controller ×1 Camera with Gimbal Kit ×1

including camera cap, lens front cap and 

lens rear cap

Gimbal Clamp ×1 Propellers (Pair) ×4 Intelligent Flight Battery 

(TB47) ×1

Battery Charger ×1 Manuals

Power Cable ×1 Remote Controller Charging 

Cable ×1(Complementary)

Micro-USB Cables ×2

(Complementary)

In the Box

Check that all of the following items are included in the package. If any items are missing, 

please contact your seller.

SD Card (16GB) ×1

(Complementary)

* Complementaries are not covered by Warranty.
AIR-13-368-E

June 27, 2013

 Exemption No. 10810

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0427

Mr. James Janni

Senior Research Manager

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. 

7300 NW 62nd Avenue

Johnston, IA 50131-1004

Dear Mr. Janni:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 8, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. for an exemption from § 45.23(b) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow Pioneer Hi-Bred 

International, Inc. to use 1-inch lettering for the word “Experimental” on its unmanned 

aircraft. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 10167 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that due to the small fuselage, a very limited area existed for placing the identifying 

marks on the aircraft. It is in the public interest to permit Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. 

to use 1-inch lettering for the word “Experimental” on its unmanned aircraft for conducting 

research to support agricultural production methods.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—
2

• they don’t differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of 

exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. an exemption from 

14 CFR §§ 45.23(b) to the extent necessary to allow Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. to use 

1-inch lettering for the word “Experimental” on its unmanned aircraft. This exemption is 

subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. The word “Experimental” must be displayed on the aircraft to inform all parties of 

the aircraft’s overall operating status.

2. The petitioner may use 1-inch lettering at the location specified in the petition.

3. This exemption remains valid for the Manta aircraft, N476XS, as long as the 

aircraft operates under a current experimental airworthiness certificate.

Sincerely,

/s/

Frank P. Paskiewicz

Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service

Enclosure
<TABLE>

                    TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS TO FIXED CHARGES
<CAPTION>


                                                           Six months ended
                                                                June 30,
                                                        1998             1997
                                                    (Dollar amounts in millions)
<S>                                                  <C>           <C>
     Interest and debt expense ..................... $   210.0     $   212.3
     One-third of rental expense ...................      18.7          18.0
     Dividends declared on preferred
         securities issued by affiliates ...........      28.2          19.9
                                                     _________     _________
         Total ..................................... $   256.9     $   250.2
                                                     =========     =========

Earnings:
     Income from continuing operations ............. $   306.1     $   193.9
     Provision for income taxes ....................     161.6          87.0
     Fixed charges .................................     256.9         250.2
                                                     _________     _________
         Total ..................................... $   724.6     $   531.1
                                                     =========     =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .................      2.82          2.12
                                                     =========     =========
</TABLE>
# C_2016419EN.01002102.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark v Finanzamt Brandenburg

(Case C-400/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value Added Tax - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Right to deduction - Decision 2004/817/EC - Legislative provision of a Member State - Expenditure on goods and services - Extent of use of goods or services for non-economic purposes greater than 90 % of total use - Exclusion of the right to deduct))

(2016/C 419/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Brandenburg

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/817/EC of 19 November 2004 authorising Germany to apply a measure derogating from Article 17 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a situation in which the goods or services that an undertaking acquires are used, to an extent greater than 90 %, for non-economic activities, which fall outside the scope of value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.

1

---
No. 46312.

#### Protests 948924-G, etc., of McClintock, Stern Co., Inc., et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of ginger root, not preserved or candied, unground, the same as that the subject of *Wilson*v. *United States*(28 C. C. P. A. 63, C. A. D. 126). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1768 was therefore sustained.
No. 55445.

#### Vatti Rosary Co. *v.*United States,

protest 133307-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers in the case disclosing no reason to disturb the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.