alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
René Robert Cavelier Sieur de La Salle Relief Sculpture

One of four wreathed panels featuring framed portrait busts of early explorers.
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Enrico Causici and Antonio Capellano

Materials
    Sandstone

Year
    1829

Location
      
Above the "Discovery of the Mississippi River" Painting

Capitol Rotunda

Above four of the large Rotunda paintings in the U.S. Capitol are decorative panels of wreaths and portraits of early explorers carved in relief into the sandstone walls. The three sculptors who decorated the Rotunda were employed during the rebuilding of the Capitol after the fire of 1814.

Between the decorative panels of wreaths and portraits, historic scenes, also in relief, circle the Rotunda walls. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
USDA

VERY
TENDER
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply1181Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Ava Hill (not verified)PermalinkJuly 23, 2020 - 9:45pmWould love to volunteer
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE VIII

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY

CHAPTER 5

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Article 141

(ex Articles 123(3) and 117(2) first five indents, TEC)

(ex Articles 123(3) and 117(2) first five indents, TEC)

1.   If and as long as there are Member States with a derogation, and without prejudice to Article 129(1), the General Council of the European Central Bank referred to in Article 44 of the Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB shall be constituted as a third decision-making body of the European Central Bank.

2.   If and as long as there are Member States with a derogation, the European Central Bank shall, as regards those Member States:

| — | strengthen cooperation between the national central banks, |
| --- | --- |

—

strengthen cooperation between the national central banks,

| — | strengthen the coordination of the monetary policies of the Member States, with the aim of ensuring price stability, |
| --- | --- |

—

strengthen the coordination of the monetary policies of the Member States, with the aim of ensuring price stability,

| — | monitor the functioning of the exchange-rate mechanism, |
| --- | --- |

—

monitor the functioning of the exchange-rate mechanism,

| — | hold consultations concerning issues falling within the competence of the national central banks and affecting the stability of financial institutions and markets, |
| --- | --- |

—

hold consultations concerning issues falling within the competence of the national central banks and affecting the stability of financial institutions and markets,

| — | carry out the former tasks of the European Monetary Cooperation Fund which had subsequently been taken over by the European Monetary Institute. |
| --- | --- |

—

carry out the former tasks of the European Monetary Cooperation Fund which had subsequently been taken over by the European Monetary Institute.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF HEALTH  PROFESSIONALS,  INC.,  FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1997,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                         OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          39       
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,557
<INVENTORY>                                     87
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,422
<PP&E>                                       3,087 
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,064
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        94
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,569
<SALES>                                      4,251 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,260
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             202
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,142)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,142)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.24)

        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NATHAN KINTA WILKINS, a/k/a Kat Daddy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (4:08-cr-00043-FL-1)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathan Kinta Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn Perry, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North 

Carolina; Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathan Kinta Wilkins appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny 

Wilkins’ motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Wilkins, 

Nos. 4:08-cr-00043-FL-1; 4:11-cv-00179-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 

2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
```

                                                                    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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of
Finlay Enterprises, Inc., (the "Company") does hereby certify with respect to
the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended October
29, 2005 (the "Report") that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

Date: December 8, 2005

                                        /s/ Arthur E. Reiner
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Arthur E. Reiner
                                        Chairman, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
```
#### In the Matter of Joseph P. Vaccarella, as Mayor of the City of Mount Vernon, Petitioner, against James Blythe, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Westchester County,

April 22, 1959.

*Louis R.*Pagano, *Corporation Counsel (Joseph G. Madonna*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Paul R. Crames*for respondent.

Arthur D. Brennan, J.

The petitioner, as Mayor of the City of Mount Vernon, applies for an order directing that a warrant issue to the Sheriff of Westchester County to apprehend the respondent and produce him as a witness before the petitioner, who is conducting an inquiry into housing conditions in said city, pursuant to the powers vested in him by article VI of the charter of said city. The respondent has been served with a subpoena issued by the petitioner to appear and give evidence in said housing investigation and to produce all books and records concerning the maintenance, operation and control of certain premises (in the city) which are leased by the respondent. Upon advice of counsel the respondent refused to obey the subpoena or attend the inquiry.

*308The respondent contends that the petitioner has no power to subpoena and examine the respondent, as a private citizen, and to compel him to produce his books and records.

It is this court’s view that under and pursuant to section 66 of the City Charter the petitioner had the power to conduct the investigation and issue the subpoena. Under this section it appears to be clear that the petitioner has the power to issue subpoenas to witnesses, whether they be private citizens or public officials or employees, “in all eases relating to the affairs of the city and its officers and employees.” (Cf. *Matter of Frank*v. Balog, 189 Misc. 1016, affd. 272 App. Div. 941; *Matter of Krauss*[Vaccarella], 285 App. Div. 964, affd. 309 N. Y. 924.) Respondent’s further contention that the only power to investigate the public affairs of the city was in the Common Council, pursuant to section 50 of the City Charter, may not be sustained. The Appellate Division in *Matter of Krauss (supra)*stated that the Common Council had the investigative and subpoena power under section 50 of the charter, similar to that which was given to the petitioner under section 66 of said charter. The result is that the petitioner as well as the Common Council have the power to investigate the affairs of the city.

Accordingly the application is granted unless the respondent appears and testifies with 10 days following the service of the order to be entered hereon with notice of entry thereof.

Settle order on notice.
**Exhibit 99.8**

 

**DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON**

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD

SUITE 800 EAST

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244

 

February 22, 2012

 

Nexen Inc.

801-7th Avenue S.W.

Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P7

 

Board of Directors:

 

We hereby consent to references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton, and information from our opinion letter concerning the United Kingdom, Nigeria, and Canada relating to our evaluation, as of December 31, 2011 (the “Opinion”), of certain oil and gas properties of Nexen Inc. (the “Corporation”), contained in the sections entitled “Reserves, Production and Related Information” and “Interests of Experts” in the Annual Information Form of the Corporation dated February 15, 2012, which is included in the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 40-F”), as described or incorporated by reference in: (i) the Form 40-F; (ii) the Corporation’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-119276, 333-118019 and 333-13574), (iii) the Corporation’s Registration Statements on Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-172612, 333-142670, 333-142652 and 333-84786), and (iv) the Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form F-10 (File No. 333-174753), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as applicable. We further consent to the Corporation filing the Opinion with any Canadian or United States securities commission or regulatory authority as it relates to the above mentioned filings.

 
|   | Very   truly yours,                       |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |                                      |
|   |                                      |
|   | /s/   DeGolyer and MacNaughton            |
|   | DeGOLYER   and MacNAUGHTON                |
|   | Texas   Registered Engineering Firm F-716 |

 

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHNSON NAPITULPULU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71673

Agency No. A095-634-743

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 15, 2013** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Johnson Napitulpulu, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an

abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v.

FILED

JAN 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71673

INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part the

petition for review. 

We lack jurisdiction to review Napitulpulu’s contentions related to asylum

and equitable tolling of the one-year filing requirement because he failed to raise

them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). We

do not consider the 2010 U.S. Department of State International Religious

Freedom Report for Indonesia that Napitulpulu attached to his opening brief. See

Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is

limited to the administrative record).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Napitulpulu’s motion to

reconsider his withholding of removal claim in light of this court’s disfavored

group cases because Napitulpulu did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk

to show it is more likely than not he would be persecuted in Indonesia. See Halim

v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,

1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to

adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail

than would an asylum applicant”). We reject Napitulpulu’s requests that the court

reconsider its stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution or require the

agency to revisit the issue in light of the 2010 religious freedom report. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
EXHIBIT 8.1

MFC INDUSTRIAL LTD.

LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES AS
AT APRIL 1, 2013

|                                                              | Country of
      Incorporation |  | Beneficial
      Interest(1)
|------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------
|MFC Commodities
    GmbH                                      | Austria                        |  | 100%                        
|MFC Trade & Financial Service
    GmbH                        | Austria                        |  | 100%                        
|IC Managementservices
      GmbH                              | Austria                        |  | 100%                        
|Compton Petroleum Austria GmbH                                | Austria                        |  | 100%                        
|International Trade
      Services GmbH                       | Austria                        |  | 100%                        
|MFC Metal Trading GmbH                                        | Austria                        |  | 100%                        
|Compton Petroleum
      Corporation                           | Canada                         |  | 100%                        
|Kasese Cobalt Company Limited                                 | Uganda                         |  | 100%                        
|ACC Resources Co.,
      LP                                   | United States                  |  | 80%(2)                      
|ACC Resources S.R.L.                                          | Argentina                      |  | 80%(2)                      
|Possehl Mexico S.A. de
      C.V.                             | Mexico                         |  | 60%                         
|AFM Aluminiumfolie Merseburg GmbH                             | Germany                        |  | 55%                         
|MAW Mansfelder
      Aluminiumwerk GmbH                       | Germany                        |  | 55%                         
|MFC (A) Ltd                                                   | Marshall Islands               |  | 100%                        
|MFC (D) Ltd                                                   | Marshall Islands               |  | 100%                        
|Brock Metals s.r.o.                                           | Slovakia                       |  | 100%                        
|M Financial
Corp.                                             | Barbados                       |  | 100%                        
|Mednet (Shanghai) Medical Technical
      Developing Co., Ltd | China                          |  | 90%                         
|Hangzhou Zhe-er Optical
      Co. Ltd                         | China                          |  | 46%                         
|MFC Corporate Services AG                                     | Switzerland                    |  | 100%                        

|____________________
|--------------------
|Notes:              
|(1)                 
|(2)                 
|                    

---