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

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [WY-957-07-9820-BJ-WY03] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file the plats of survey of the lands described below thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This survey was executed at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Medicine Bow National Forest and is necessary for the management of these lands. The lands surveyed are: 

The plat and field notes representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary, a portion of the west boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of certain sections, Township 18 North, Range 79 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming, was accepted May 14, 2007. 

Copies of the preceding described plat and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $1.10 per page. 

Dated: May 14, 2007. 

John P. Lee, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Support Services.

[FR Doc. E7-9653 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4467-22-P
Before the Second Division,

April 14, 1943

No. 48194.

#### Protests 999418-G, etc., of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) and Abstract 46498 the protests were sustained as to the hats of straw or hemp in question in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
#### ATLANTIC CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES.

No. 48766.

United States Court of Claims.

Dec. 6, 1948.

See also 81 F.Supp. 235.

Milton Kramer, of Washington, D. C. (Schoene, Freehill & Kramer, of Washington, D. C., on tlie brief), for plaintiff.

William A. Stern, II, of Washington, D. C., and H. G. Morison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and MADDEN, WHITAKER, LITTLETON and HOWELL, Judges.

HOWELL, Judge.

On July 28, 1948, plaintiff filed its petition in this court under Section 6 of the Lucas Act, Act Aug. 7, 1946, ch. 864, 60 Stat. 903, as amended by Section 37 of the Act of June 25, 1948, Public Law 773, 80th Cong., 2nd Sess., 41 U.S.C.A. § 106 note. On August 2, 1948, plaintiff filed a similar petition in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia. On September 8, 1948, pursuant to motion and without objection, the District Court entered an order transferring the action in that court, and all papers filed in that action, to this court. On August 26, 1948, the defendant fil^d a motion to dismiss the action filed in this court on July 28, 1948, on the ground that prior to September 1, 1948, this court did not have jurisdiction of the cause of action, and inferentially that before September 1, 1948, the statute of limitations would have run on the cause of action.

Since we have previously decided that a motion by the defendant to dismiss the petition of plaintiff’s assignor. Samuel Wax-man d/b/a Acme Iron Works, on an identical cause of action should be overruled, the question raised in this case has been answered. The motion to dismiss the petition is hereby overruled.

It is so ordered.
# C_2013009EN.01003801.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/38

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — Intrasoft v Commission

(Case T-403/12 R)

(Interim measures - Public contracts - Procurement procedure - Rejection of a bid - Application for a stay of execution - Lack of urgency)

2013/C 9/69

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for a stay of execution, first, of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 10 August 2012 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure EuropeAid/131367/C/SER/RS concerning technical assistance to the customs administration of Serbia to support the modernisation of the customs system (OJ 2011/S 160-262712), and, secondly, of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 12 September 2012 informing the applicant that the evaluation committee had recommended that the contract be awarded to another tenderer.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2014142EN.01005401.xml

| 12.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/54

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2014 — Alfa-Beta Vassilopoulos v OHIM — Henkel (AB terra Leaf)

(Case T-522/12) (1)

1

2014/C 142/69

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

1

---
Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2015-7777 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2015-CE-037-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

Page 1 of 3
If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here

Page 2 of 3
Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date

Page 3 of 3
CHANGE OF NAME
DP871756429
[02-07-91          08:30]
[911007235      $35.00]


                           ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

                                   TO THE

                        ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF

                            VALENCIA CAPITAL, INC.

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, pursuant to the Colorado Business Corporation
Act, hereby adopt the following Articles of Amendment as a revision
of the articles of Incorporation of Valencia Capital, Inc.

FIRST: The name of the corporation is Valencia Capital, Inc.

SECOND: The duration of the corporation is perpetual.

THIRD: The following amendments to the Articles of Incorporation
were approved by the shareholders:

Article I of the Articles of Incorporation is hereby amended in its
entirety to read as follows:

                           ARTICLE I

                         Corporate Name

The name of the corporation is: Jones Naughton Entertainment, Inc.

FOURTH: The amendments set forth in Article Third above were adopted
the 7th day of December, 1990.

FIFTH: The number of shares outstanding and entitled to vote of such
amendments as of the 7th day of December, 1990, was 3,970,755.

{STAMP}[COMPUTER UPDATE COMPLETE]
{STAMP}[COMP. CH'D RPM

<PAGE>

SIXTH:  3,110,626 shares voted for such amendments, and 0 shares
voted against such amendments.

DATED this 20 day of December, 1990.

/s/Spike Jones, Jr.
Spike Jones, Jr., President

/s/Joseph Naughton
Joseph Naughton, Secretary

STATE OF CALIFORNIA          )
                             ) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES        )

I, THE UNDERSIGNED, a Notary Public, hereby certify that on the 20
day of December, 1990, personally appeared before me Spike Jones,
Jr. and Joseph Naughton, who being by me first duly sworn severally
declared that they are the persons who signed the foregoing Articles
of Amendment as corporate officers of Valencia Capital, Inc., and
that the statements contained herein are true.

/s/David K. Armstrong
NOTARY PUBLIC

Residing at: (not legible)

(SEAL)
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 Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.



A signed original of this written certification 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.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ DANIEL E. DOSORETZ, M.D.         
|Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.             
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(principal executive officer)        
|May 16, 2005
OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eonorabla I. L. Uhaadler 

county AuAitor 

iioatagua cotmtr 

M?Jatagur, 2wxal 

bar sir1 

Your rrquat TOY 

fully omrlAeroA by thla U 

queet as r8llewsr 

OF l tb0r or tb corni~ 

o haio this rrrk Aono 

the AuUter tir8t befrr(i 

The thlQrq that 

t: be 

bo Juaif~eA in not allow= 

pnria when pra00ma te tho 

o authoritiar citeA ir opinion8 Sue. 0-699 

and 0-61~9 of thla a0partasnt. oopies of whloh am soabood 

for your information, uo arawer peer rir& pusmtion in th,a 

aqatira. 

It It3 the duty or th*'CountJ dw3itor tc 8(H to thr 

rtriat eniorowmt of the law (~ovecnfng eountr iLaanses. tAFti010 1681, V. A. C. 8.) I3 is his 4luty ta oxmaim and inquire 
Eotmrablo S. L. ChnMler, Saga 8 

into tkr oorrootnees et l o6euatB agalrmt tke osuety. ( A& icle 1653, V. A. C. 8.) O~aimm, billr anA raeouat* yaiaet 

tho oounty are tiubJoot tc the approrrl of the Cmaty Auditor 

before vamc?nt can ba mado. (Art&oh 1660. V. A. C. 8.1 ‘Iha 

Ie a nswer to h o ur lea o aa queetloa you are reupeotfuAly l dri8ed tlmt it la the opfainn of thi8 6q?eirtuant that 

LOU hato no legal authority trr lp#rero t,&l ooouats e deoOrlb- 

& IS pur letter and mat it i# your aut)r to rsfueo to approw 

r ueh l ea eunte. 

Y.r y trull r o ta s 

Al3-mlw.t -t or mIx A
Before the Second Division,

December 12, 1945

No. 50764.

#### Protests 65037-K, etc., of Weil Bros. Textile, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, E.J. Holm, the principle executive officer of the Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Iroquois Gas
Transmission System, L.P.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.

DATE: August 11, 2003

_____________________________
/S/ E.J. HOLM
E.J. HOLM
PRESIDENT
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 15, 2021

No. 04-21-00416-CV

Kimi-Lyn MURRAY,

Appellant

v.

Phillip MURRAY,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-19449

The Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On November 10, 2021, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing that either: (1) the 

notice of appeal filing fee has been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the 

filing fee. On November 12, 2021, appellant filed written proof that she is entitled to appeal 

without paying the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(b)(1). Accordingly, we retain this appeal 

on the docket.

The reporter’s record is now due. We ORDER the court reporter to file the reporter’s 

record in this court by November 29, 2021.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of November, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1698 

_____________________________

BRITTANY N. MACK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Timothy Register, Judge.

June 6, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 15, 2019

No. 04-19-00790-CV

IN RE Joshua KARLIN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

On November 7, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court believes

a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the 

petition in this court no later than December 2, 2019. Any such response must conform to 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on November 15, 2019.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015CI08588, styled In the Interest of K.G.K., a Child, pending in the 

408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Laura Salinas presiding.
| 1. | I      have reviewed this amendment no. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of      CoStar Group, Inc.; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this      report; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this      report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date:      March 3, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/      Brian J. Radecki                                                        |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                     |   |   | Brian      J. Radecki                                                            |
|   |                     |   |   | Chief      Financial Officer                                                     |
|   |                     |   |   | (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer and Duly Authorized    Officer) |
# C_2014135EN.01001401.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — FIRIN OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-107/13) (1)

1

((Common system of value added tax - Deduction of input tax paid - Payments made on account - Refusal to allow the deduction - Fraud - Adjustment of the deduction in the case where the taxable transaction is not carried out - Conditions))

2014/C 135/15

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FIRIN OOD

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Interpretation of Article 168(a), read in conjunction with Articles 65, 90(1) and 185(1), and of Article 205, read in conjunction with Articles 168(a) and 193, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Principles of the neutrality of VAT, effectiveness and proportionality — Deduction of input tax paid — Payment made on account in respect of precisely identified goods prior to the supply — Refusal to allow the deduction at the time of receipt of the payment on account since supply not made — Possibility for the supplier to adjust the deduction initially made and impact on the refusal to allow such a deduction — Refusal to allow the recipient of a supply to deduct VAT because of the joint and several liability for payment of the tax of a taxable person other than the person liable — Designation of the person jointly and severally liable on the basis of presumptions founded on established precepts of civil law.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 65, 90(1), 168(a), 185(1) and 193 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as requiring that the deduction of value added tax made by the recipient of an invoice drawn up with a view to a payment being made on account in relation to the supply of goods be adjusted where, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, that supply is ultimately not made, even if the supplier remains liable for that tax and has not refunded the payment made on account.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.

1

---