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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 100 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 100

    Limiting the mileage allowance rates for Members, officers, and 
   employees of the House of Representatives to the rates generally 
                  applicable to Government employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1993

   Mr. Santorum (for himself, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, and Mr. 
 Ballenger) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Limiting the mileage allowance rates for Members, officers, and 
   employees of the House of Representatives to the rates generally 
                  applicable to Government employees.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON MILEAGE ALLOWANCE RATES FOR MEMBERS, OFFICERS, 
              AND EMPLOYEES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

    Notwithstanding any law or any rule or other authority, the mileage 
allowance rates for Members, officers, and employees of the House of 
Representatives may not exceed the mileage allowance rates prescribed 
by the Administrator of General Services under section 5707 of title 5, 
United States Code.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.

    The Committee on House Administration of the House of 
Representatives shall have authority to prescribe regulations to carry 
out this resolution.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The limitation under section 1 shall apply with respect to travel 
performed after the date on which this resolution is agreed to.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2019357EN.01002901.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2019 — Lithuania v Commission

(Affaire T-603/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Axis 4 ‘Leader’ - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Administrative checks - Obligation to implement a suitable system for evaluating the reasonableness of the costs - Contribution in kind in the form of unpaid voluntary work - Contribution in kind in the form of a contribution of immovable property - On-the-spot checks - Presence of documents supporting payment claims - Implementation of operations financed in accordance with the rules on public procurement)

(2019/C 357/35)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented: initially by D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė, R. Dzikovič and M. Palionis, then by R. Krasuckaitė, R. Dzikovič, M. Palionis, I. Javičienė and T. Lozoraitis and lastly R. Dzikovič, M. Palionis, I. Javičienė and T. Lozoraitis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 165, p. 37), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Lithuania.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---
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 Quarterly Report of Chang-On International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|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.
|  

Dated: August 13, 2008
     By: /s/ Guomin LiGuomin LiPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Director


---
#### Lawson *v.*The State.

Judgment against defendant reversed, because it does not appear from tlie record that tlie' jury were sworn.

*Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court.*

Hon. Thomas Boles, Circuit Judge.

Clendenin, J.

The appellant was indicted for the crime of larceny; he was tried, convicted and sentenced, and having filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, he appealed to this court.

Not having the benefit of any assignment of error, or brief on the part of the appellant, to indicate the points of his objection to the proceedings in this case, in the circuit court, we are required to examine the transcript of the record sent to us, to see if there is any error. Hpon that examination we find a very material error; for it nowhere appears. upon record, as we have it, that the individuals who tried the case, and rendered the verdict, were sworn in any manner as jurors in the case. The record entry is, that twelve persons — naming them — were selected for the venire, heard the evidence, and rendered a verdict, and in no part of the record is there any intimation that they were sworn.

For this error, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and remanded, with directions to grant the defendant in that • court a new trial.
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 10:53 AM

To: 'mmckinnonf@mckennalong.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Hightower, Gerald CTR (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Aviation Unmanned

Dear Mr. McKinnon:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2014

‐ 0984). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

1. The petitioner states that the maximum takeoff weight for the Super Bat is 50 lbs. According to the

manufacturers website, the maximum gross takeoff weight (MGTOW) for MLB company’s Super Bat is 37 lbs. Which

model are you requesting exemption for?

2. What is the amount of fuel that can be carried by the Super Bat?

3. What safety record has the Super Bat achieved as stated in the petition on page 1?

Please submit the additional information (non

‐ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e

‐ mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 5/19/15 If we do not receive

the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Opinion filed August 18, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-20-00466-CV

IN RE RICHARD JIMENEZ, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-04715

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Tuesday, June 30, 2020, relator, Richard Jimenez, filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In his petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable

Fredericka M. Phillips, presiding judge of the 61st District Court of Harris County,

to vacate her order protecting an apex employee from deposition. Because we hold 

there is an adequate remedy by appeal, we deny relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. 
2

Mandamus Standard of Review 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 

S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). With certain 

exceptions, to obtain mandamus relief a relator must show both that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In 

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). The realtor bears the burden of proving both requirements. In re 

H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

Adequate Remedy by Appeal?

In his petition, relator fails to address whether there is an adequate remedy 

by appeal. The case law is clear that mandamus is the appropriate remedy when 

trial court allows an apex deposition to go forward in violation of the standard 

governing such discovery. See In re Continental Airlines, Inc., 305 S.W.3d 849, 

852 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, orig. proceeding). We have not found 

any cases allowing for mandamus review of the granting of a protective order. 

There are, however, cases where the granting of a protective order is reviewed on 

appeal. See Bullock v. American Heart Ass’n. 360 S.W.3d 661, 666 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2012, pet. denied); Enercor, Inc. v. Pennzoil Gas Marketing Co., Nos. 01-

98-01026-CV, 01-98-01332-CV, 2001 WL 754773 at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] Jul. 5, 2001, pet. denied). Accordingly, we hold that relator failed in 

meeting his burden to show he does not have an adequate remedy by appeal.

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Spain.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 227

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that United States

Armed Forces should be withdrawn from Somalia as expeditiously as possible.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 1993

Mr. BROWN of Ohio submitted the following resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

United States Armed Forces should be withdrawn from

Somalia as expeditiously as possible.

Whereas the famine that served as the rationale for the

United States military presence in Somalia has abated

considerably;

Whereas both the United States and the United Nations lack

a clear sense of mission and purpose in Somalia, particularly with respect to the deteriorating military situation;

Whereas the humanitarian mission to Somalia has been overwhelmed by the military reality in that country;

Whereas United States Armed Forces in Somalia find themselves increasingly vulnerable to sniper and rocket at-
2

•HRES 227 IH

tacks, with the potential for a Beirut-type car bomb disaster;

Whereas United States allies in the Somalia operation have

begun to question openly the basis for the mission;

Whereas the United States military presence in Somalia will

cost an estimated $750,000,000 for fiscal year 1993; and

Whereas the unprecedented floods and the natural disaster in

the Mississippi River Valley have brought to our attention the need for increased assistance for domestic purposes: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives implores

2 the President to withdraw United States Armed Forces

3 from Somalia as expeditiously as possible.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 928

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a full exemption

from the volume cap on private activity bonds for bonds used to finance

high-speed intercity rail facilities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 17, 1993

Mr. COYNE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

a full exemption from the volume cap on private activity

bonds for bonds used to finance high-speed intercity rail

facilities.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. BONDS FOR HIGH-SPEED INTERCITY RAIL FA4 CILITIES FULLY EXEMPT FROM VOLUME CAP.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 146(g)

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to excep7 tion for certain bonds) is amended by striking ‘‘75 percent

8 of’’.
2

•HR 928 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply to bonds issued after the date

3 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### BECK’S SERVICE STATIONS, INC., *v.*SUN OIL CO.

1. Landlord and Tenant — Breach of Lease Entitled Lessor to Possession.

Breach of condition in oil filling station lease requiring exclusive sale of lessor’s products by lessees entitled lessor to possession.

2. Same — Forcible Entry.

Sublessees’ voluntary delivery of possession to lessor after lessees’ breach of condition in lease made lessor’s entry peaceable, and left no right of action for. forcible entry in lessees.

3. Same — Subsequent Force After Peaceable Entry.

Retention of possession by lessor by force after peaceable entry did not relate back and make lessor guilty of forcible entry.

Appeal from Jackson; Simpson (John), J.

Submitted May 9, 1932.

(Docket No. 177, Calendar No. 35,951.)

Decided June 6, 1932.

Case by Beck’s Service Stations, Inc., a Michigan corporation, and others against Sun Oil Company, a New Jersey corporation, for forcible entry on leased premises. Directed verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

*F. L. Blackman,*for plaintiffs.

*Whiting, Kleinstiver & Aubrey,*for defendant.

Fead, J.

In April, 1927, defendant leased two oil and gasoline filling stations to plaintiffs Beck, then copartners, a condition of the lease being the exclusive sale of defendant’s products at the stations. In July, 1927, with defendant’s written consent, *211plaintiffs orally sublet the stations at monthly rentals.

About October, 1928, plaintiffs discontinued the use of defendant’s products in their various stations and required the sublessees in the premises leased from defendant to use the products of others. For this breach of - the leases, defendant demanded possession of the stations, and the sublessees peapeably surrendered it, although plaintiffs had told them not to do so. After defendant had taken peaceable possession of the stations, plaintiffs tried to regain it by force, and were repelled by force.

The action is for damages for forcible entry. Defendant had directed verdict and judgment.

Defendant was entitled to possession because of plaintiffs’ breach of the leases. As between plaintiffs and the sublessees, the latter had both possession and right of possession. Their voluntary delivery of possession to defendant made defendant’s entry peaceable and left no right of action for forcible entry in plaintiffs. *Vincent*v. *Brant,*101 Mich. 60. The subsequent retention of possession by force did not relate back and make defendant guilty of forcible entry. *Richter*v. *Cordes,*100 Mich. 278.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
          FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, THE
          CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, THE CONSOLIDATED
          STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW AND THE RELATED NOTES FOR THE THREE
          MONTH PERIOD THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
          BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         10,755
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                      461
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               20,347
<PP&E>                                          2,767
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,002
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 25,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,783
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           51
<OTHER-SE>                                     21,551
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   25,385
<SALES>                                        12,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,146
<CGS>                                           1,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10,503
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   885
<INCOME-TAX>                                      277
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               608
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (2,645)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,037)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.35)
 
        

</TABLE>
M14004 – Chemical 1

Chemical Structure



## CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
### S10-100428-048 

# III
DENVER TH. MILl HIGH CITY

# ~r DENVER <­ INTERNATIONAL AI R.'OItT DepartmentofA\liallon Airport Office Buildin,

.8500 Pella BOulevard Denver, Colorado 80249

.303.342.2201

www.f1yOenver.com 

## DEPT OF**m'\NSPORT/~TION DDC!<~TS** 

April 20, 2010

The Honorable Raymond H. laHood Secretary U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Docket DOT·OST-2010-_ Dear Mr. Secretary: Thank you for the opportunity to express Denver International Airport's support for the application for antitrust Immunity and proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines (AA/JL). The proposed alliance between these two airlines will enhance the benefits ofthe Department's Open Skies policy by solidifying U.S.
- Japan Open Skies and by serving as a foundation for further liberalization across Asia. We encourage the Department ofTransportation to approve this application. Approval for these alliances will have a positive impact on air. travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from the competition afforded by air alliances. Thank you for your attention'and consideration ofthis application. We urge you to approve this application. Sincerely,

Kim Day Manager ofAviation
**EXHIBIT 99.11**

 

**CONSENT OF TIM MAUNULA**

 

March 20, 2012

 

Brigus Gold Corp.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

** **

**Re: Brigus Gold Corp.**

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection withthe following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F forthe year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consentrelates: (A) the technical reports entitled “Black Fox Project National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report” dated January6, 2011, “NI 43-101 Technical Report, Pre-feasibility Study, Brigus Gold Corp., Goldfields Project, Saskatchewan, Canada”dated effective October 6, 2011 and “Technical Report and Resource Estimate on the 147 and Contact Zones of the Black FoxComplex, Ontario, Canada” dated December 15, 2011 (collectively, the “Reports”), (B) the Company’s AnnualInformation Form for the year ended December 31, 2011 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis forthe year ended December 31, 2011, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Reports in theRegistration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889, 333-162558 and 333-167757), as amended, or any related abbreviatedregistration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements theretoand (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced Registration Statementsand in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.

 

Sincerely,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           24400
<SECURITIES>                                        90
<RECEIVABLES>                                   366339
<ALLOWANCES>                                     17667
<INVENTORY>                                     237900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                707600
<PP&E>                                          737055
<DEPRECIATION>                                  428726
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1572800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           434800
<BONDS>                                         306200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         78100
<OTHER-SE>                                      577100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1572800
<SALES>                                        1518300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1518300
<CGS>                                          1064900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1343000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               17900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 157400
<INCOME-TAX>                                     63000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              94400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     94400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>