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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2057 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, as the ‘‘Specialist Ryan P. 

Jayne Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, 

as the ‘‘Specialist Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST RYAN P. JAYNE POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 198 Baker Street in Corning, 

7 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Spe8 cialist Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2057 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Specialist Ryan P. 

5 Jayne Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013270EN.01000401.xml

| 19.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/4

---

Special Report No 6/2013 ‘Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy?’

2013/C 270/03

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 6/2013 ‘Have the Member States and the Commission achieved value for money with the measures for diversifying the rural economy?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’ |
| 12, rue Alcide de Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’

12, rue Alcide de Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 17, 2017

s0510 

# Order

Clerk May 17, 2017

154374

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154374

COA: 325856

Berrien CC: 2014

- 001528

- FH

EDWARD PINKNEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressing: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence

under MRE 404(b) that related to the defendant’s political and community activities other

than the mayoral recall effort for the purpose of showing the defendant’s motive to

commit the instant crimes, and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that

MCL 168.937 creates the substantive offense of election forgery and is not merely a

penalty provision for the specific forgery offenses set forth in other provisions of the

Michigan election law. The parties should not submit mere restate ments of their

application papers.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements dated December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                 2,075,000
<SECURITIES>                             577,000
<RECEIVABLES>                         18,581,000
<ALLOWANCES>                           1,230,000
<INVENTORY>                           24,861,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      49,395,000
<PP&E>                                26,947,000
<DEPRECIATION>                        15,705,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        70,753,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 58,753,000
<BONDS>                                2,571,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  64,000
<OTHER-SE>                           (12,217,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          70,753,000
<SALES>                               66,691,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      66,691,000
<CGS>                                 58,710,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         17,328,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       4,076,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     3,013,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (15,505,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                             411,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (15,109,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                         (15,109,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (3.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (3.30)



</TABLE>
# C_2013193EN.01000101.xml

| 4.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6904 — Yamaha/KYB/KYB Motorcycle Suspension JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 193/01

On 25 June 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6904. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6904. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 40793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17666]



[[Page 40793]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permit issued.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower 
Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8030; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adeceeecddc8dfc0c4d9deedc3decb83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ebaaa8aa9b8e9986829f98ab85988dc58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 21, 2018, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit 
application received. The permit was issued on August 7, 2018 to:

1. Ron Naveen, Oceanites, Inc., Permit No. 2019-001

Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2018-17666 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2013165EN.01000201.xml

| 11.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6894 — Syral China Investment/Wilmar China New Investments/Liaoning Jinxin Biology & Chemistry)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 165/02

On 31 May 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6894. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6894. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Alvin J. THIBODEAUX et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2477.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 29, 1968.

William C. Bradley, Baker, and Dennu Whalen, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Gold, Hall & Skye, by Leo Gold, Alexandria, for defendants-appellees.

On Motion to Dismiss

En Banc.

SAVOY, Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on a motion filed by appellees to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the record was not lodged in this Court on the return date fixed by the district judge, namely, June 17, 1968, due to the fault of the appellants in failing to return the original transcript of testimony to the Clerk of the district court in time to allow preparation of the record within the allotted time, despite repeated requests from the office of the Clerk for the return of the transcript of testimony.

The record reveals that the appeal in the instant case was lodged in this Court on June 19, 1968, and the motion to dismiss the appeal was filed on June 25, 1968.

We are of the opinion that the motion to dismiss the appeal should be overruled for the reason that said motion was not filed within three (3) judicial days after the appeal was lodged in this Court as pro*190vided for by LSA-C.C.P. Article 2161 and Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Davis, 169 So.2d 404 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1964).

For the reasons assigned the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

Motion to dismiss overruled.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20054

Conference Calendar

 

L. T. ROBERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS USA; GEORGE W. BUSH, JR., Governor; TEXAS HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATION; TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE DEPARTMENT; TEXAS 

SECRETARY OF STATE; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; STRING 

FELLOW, Texas Department Criminal Justice; ALLAN POLUNSKY, 

Texas Board Criminal Justice; TOM C. CLARK, Criminal Justice 

Policy Council; VICTO RODREQUEZ, Texas Board of Pardons and 

Paroles; GERALD GARRETT, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles;

ETHIC COMMISSION OF TEXAS; PAROLE DIRECTOR; TEXAS 

COMMISSIONER OF HUMAN RIGHTS; WAYNE D. MORTY; ADJUTANT 

GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; HOUSE OF TEXAS 

SENATE; JOHN WHITMIRE, Criminal Justice Chairmen; PHIL 

GRAHAM, US Senate; LAWRENACE F. ALVIN, CPA; CAROL KEELER 

RYLANDER, Comptroller of Accounts; GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-1055

--------------------

October 26, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

L.T. Roberson (Roberson), Texas prisoner #705264, appeals

the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Because Roberson does not
No. 01-20054

-2-

adequately address the district court's reasons for dismissing

his civil action, he has abandoned the only issues before this

court. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Roberson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2. Roberson’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED. 

The dismissal of this appeal and the district court's

dismissal of this lawsuit as frivolous constitute two strikes for

purposes of the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar. Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Roberson has previously been

issued one strike by this court. See Roberson v. Morales, No.

98-40832 (5th Cir. April 16, 1999). As Roberson has accumulated

three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil

action or appeal brought in a United States court while he is

incarcerated unless he is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; THREE-STRIKES

BAR IMPOSED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Charles J. Hinkaty, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Del Laboratories, 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;

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 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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 the 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 control 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: April 30, 2007

                                                     /s/ Charles J. Hinkaty
                                                     ----------------------
                                                         Charles J. Hinkaty
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3266

To provide for automatic downward adjustments in the discretionary spending

limits for fiscal year 1994 set forth in the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974 equal to the amount of rescissions contained in this Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 13, 1993

Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. ZELIFF) introduced the

following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Government Operations and Appropriations

JUNE 13, 1994

Additional sponsors: Mr. VALENTINE, Mr. LEACH, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. HALL

of Texas, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr. SHAW, Mrs. MORELLA, and Mr. TANNER

Deleted sponsors: Mr. PETERSON of Florida (added March 21, 1994; deleted

April 21, 1994), and Mr. SARPALIUS (added March 21, 1994; deleted

May 3, 1994)

A BILL

To provide for automatic downward adjustments in the discretionary spending limits for fiscal year 1994 set forth

in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 equal to the

amount of rescissions contained in this Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3266 SC

1 TITLE I—DISCRETIONARY CAP

2 ADJUSTMENTS

3 SECTION 101. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF DISCRE4 TIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

5 The discretionary spending limits (new budget au6 thority and outlays) for fiscal year 1994 set forth in sec7 tion 601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,

8 as adjusted in strict conformance with section 251 of the

9 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of

10 1985, shall be reduced, as calculated by the Director of

11 the Office of Management and Budget, in amounts equal

12 to the aggregate amounts of rescissions under title II for

13 that fiscal year.

14 TITLE II—REDUCTIONS IN

15 SPENDING

16 SEC. 201. RESCISSIONS.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3323

To provide that rates of pay for the President and Members of Congress

shall be made equivalent to the rates of pay for their counterparts

in the United Mexican States if legislation implementing the North

American Free Trade Agreement is enacted.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 20, 1993

Mr. SANDERS introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Post Office and Civil Service and House Administration

A BILL

To provide that rates of pay for the President and Members

of Congress shall be made equivalent to the rates of

pay for their counterparts in the United Mexican States

if legislation implementing the North American Free

Trade Agreement is enacted.

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

3 SECTION 1. METHOD FOR DETERMINING RATES OF PAY.

4 (a) FOR THE PRESIDENT.—Section 102 of title 3,

5 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘compensa6 tion in the aggregate amount of $200,000 a year,’’ and

7 inserting ‘‘compensation equivalent to the annual rate of
2

•HR 3323 IH

1 pay (as of the start of such term) for the President of

2 the United Mexican States,’’.

3 (b) FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.—Subsection (a) of

4 section 601 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946

5 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(a)(1) The annual rate of pay for service in any

7 Congress as—

8 ‘‘(A) a Senator shall be equivalent to the an9 nual rate of pay in effect, as of the start of such

10 Congress, for a Senator in the Congress of the

11 Union of the United Mexican States; or

12 ‘‘(B) a Member of the House of Representatives

13 shall be equivalent to the annual rate of pay in ef14 fect, as of the start of such Congress, for a Deputy

15 in the Congress of the Union of the United Mexican

16 States.

17 ‘‘(2) For the purpose of this subsection, the term

18 ‘Member of the House of Representatives’ includes a Dele19 gate to the House of Representatives and the Resident

20 Commissioner from Puerto Rico.’’.

21 SEC. 2. CONDITION PRECEDENT; EFFECTIVE DATE.

22 (a) CONDITION PRECEDENT.—The amendments

23 made by section 1 shall not take effect unless the United

24 States enacts legislation implementing the North Amer25 ican Free Trade Agreement.
3

•HR 3323 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—If the condition under sub2 section (a) is met—

3 (1) the amendment made by section 1(a) shall

4 take effect as of the beginning of the first term be5 ginning after the date of the enactment of this Act;

6 and

7 (2) the amendment made by section 1(b) shall

8 take effect as of the beginning of the first Congress

9 beginning after the first election of Representatives

10 which occurs after the date of the enactment of this

11 Act.

Æ
Mark E. McKinnon Mark.McKinnon@dentons.com

D 703.336.8708

Dentons US LLP

1676 Internatio nal Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

United States

T 703.336.8800

F 703.336.8750 Salans FMC SNR Denton

McKenna Long

dentons.com

November 4, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Delivery of Operating Documents (Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 4947

- 000 1 )

To Whom it May Concern :

As you are aware, this office represents the University of Maine regarding the above

referenced Petition for Exemption, in which the University of Maine seeks regulatory relief to

allow commercial operation of small unmanned aircraft system. Please accept this letter as

confirmation that the University of Maine operating documents were submitted electronically via e

mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

If you have any questions or require any additional information to process the University of

Maine Petition, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

Mark E. McKinnon

Counsel for the University of Maine

.