alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rel: May 17, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT

OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

SC-2023-0437

Leah Abbott Belser v. Elmore County and City of Prattville (Appeal from 

Elmore Circuit Court: CV-22-900202).

SHAW, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.

Parker, C.J., and Bryan, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

| Dated:                August 15, 2005  |   | /s/                Mark J. Ahn              |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                        |   | Mark                J. Ahn                            |   |
|                                        |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer  |   |
|                                        |   |                                                       |   |
| Dated:                August 15, 2005  |   |  /s/                Russell L. Skibsted     |   |
|                                        |   | Russell                L. Skibsted                    |   |
|                                        |   | Chief                Financial Officer           |   |

----
# Federal Update - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Biden-Harris Administration Designates Nine Tech Hubs and Grant Recipients in Appalachian Region As part of the President’s Investing in America agenda, the U.S. Department of Commerce identified regional centers primed for technological innovation and job creation. WASHINGTON, DC — The Biden-Harris administration, through the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA), announced the designation of 31 Tech Hubs in regions across the country—three of which are [&#8230;]The post Biden-Harris Administration Designates Nine Tech Hubs and Grant Recipients in Appalachian Region appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- President Biden’s FY 2022 Budget Proposal Includes $235 Million for the Appalachian Regional Commission; $1 Billion for Coal-Impacted Communities through the American Jobs Plan Contact: Janiene Bohannon WASHINGTON, D.C., May 28, 2021—President Biden’s FY 2022 Budget Proposal, released today, requests $235 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and the American Jobs Plan includes an additional $1 billion for ARC’s Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization (POWER) initiative, a competitive grant program to help coal-impacted communities. The [&#8230;]The post President Biden’s FY 2022 Budget Proposal Includes $235 Million for the Appalachian Regional Commission; $1 Billion for Coal-Impacted Communities through the American Jobs Plan appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Tim Thomas Sworn in as Twelfth ARC Federal Co-Chair Sworn into the post on April 3, 2018, Thomas has more than 20 years’ experience working in Kentucky’s public and private sectors on infrastructure, workforce training, and regulatory issues.The post Tim Thomas Sworn in as Twelfth ARC Federal Co-Chair appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- President Trump Nominates Tim Thomas to Serve as ARC Federal Co-Chair Announced January 4, Thomas' nomination was referred to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on January 8 for consideration and review.The post President Trump Nominates Tim Thomas to Serve as ARC Federal Co-Chair appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2018134EN.01002501.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/25

---

Action brought on 29 January 2018 — Tsapakidou v Court of Justice

(Case T-66/18)

(2018/C 134/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Argyro Tsapakidou (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: E. Kleani, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2017 (reference 20173939) rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in respect of the freelance translator contract notice 2017/S 002-001564 for the Greek language; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2017 (reference 20173939) rejecting the applicant’s tender submitted in respect of the freelance translator contract notice 2017/S 002-001564 for the Greek language;

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant maintains that the contested decision breaches the general principles of EU law, according to which administrative acts must be sufficiently justified and state the principles on which they are based. It fails to meet these criteria. The applicant argues, in particular, that the justification provided by the defendant was insufficient in light of Article 4.3.1. of the tender specifications. Moreover, the information provided to the applicant did not enable her to assess the validity of the result obtained in the test translation in question. She lacked information regarding the evaluation guidelines or criteria on the basis of which the contested decision was adopted.

---
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - [Docket No. FAA-2022-1203]
          - 14 CFR Chapter I

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

# ACTION:

Notification of final policy; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Federal Aviation Administration published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 8, 2023, concerning its Policy Regarding Processing Land Use Changes on Federally Acquired or Federally Conveyed Airport Land. The document contained an incorrect FAA Docket Number.                    

# DATES:

This correction is effective January 8, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Helvey, Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, ACO-1, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3085; facsimile: (202) 267-4629.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 8, 2023, in FR Doc. 2023-27017, on page 85474, in the second column, correct the “Docket No.” to read:                

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1203]

Dated: December 12, 2023.

Michael Helvey,

Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis.

[FR Doc. 2023-27829 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
# C_2019025EN.01005302.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/53

---

Action brought on 12 November 2018 — Showroom v EUIPO — E-Gab (SHOWROOM)

(Case T-679/18)

(2019/C 25/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Showroom sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by M. Janicka — Kapłon, legal adviser)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E-Gab NV (Ternat, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court/Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SHOWROOM — Application for registration No 11 110 376

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 1834/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and E-GAB (if the latter decides to intervene in the proceedings) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant in the procedure before the Board of Appeal and before the Opposition Division of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and E-GAB (if the latter decides to intervene in the proceedings) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant in the procedure before the Board of Appeal and before the Opposition Division of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Union and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Union and of the Council.

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



/s/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
President, CEO & CFO
October 31, 2007
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  HONORING JOAQUIN JACKSON'S INDUCTION INTO THE TEXAS HEROES HALL OF 
                                 HONOR

                                 ______
                                 

                    HON. FRANCISCO ``QUICO'' CANSECO

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. CANSECO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Joaquin Jackson's 
induction into the Texas Heroes Hall of Honor. Haynie Joaquin Jackson 
was born in Anton, Texas and served as a Texas Ranger from 1966 to 
1993. During his career, Joaquin was committed to protecting our border 
communities and ensuring justice was served to those who broke the law. 
Also during his time, he saw the Rangers transition into the modern law 
enforcement agency it is today.
   After being featured on a 1994 cover of Texas Monthly magazine, the 
retired Ranger became personified as the modern Texas Ranger. Joaquin 
appeared in several movies, including: The Good Old Boys with Tommy Lee 
Jones, Rough Riders and the Streets of Laredo, Palo Pinto Gold and 
Poodle Dog Lounge.
   As a constituent of mine in Alpine, Texas, I am proud to 
congratulate Mr. Jackson on his outstanding life achievements and 
induction into the Texas Heroes Hall of Honor.

                          ____________________
```
WA MT

ME

ND

SD

WY

WI

ID

VT

MN

OR NH

IA MA

NE

NY

PA

CT

NJ

NV UT

CA

OH

WV

CO

KS MO

AZ

TN NC

TX

NM

MS AL GA

SC

AR

LA

FL

MI

IL IN

DE

MD

VA

RI

OK

KY

DC

PR

VI AK

HI

USDA APHIS

2150 Centre Ave

Fort Collins, Co 80526

These data, and all the information contained therein, have been collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or by its cooperators on APHIS’ behalf, for restricted government purposes only and is

the sole property of APHIS. See full disclaimer: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/help/data-disclaimer

United States

Department of

Agriculture Swine Health Protection - Garbage Feeding

MARCH 2024

Permitted States (25 States + PR & VI)

Prohibited States (25 States)

0 250 500

Miles

0 250 500

Kilometers

Date Created:

3/11/2024 [
The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for 1

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-1802

___________

Mae E. Gettis, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

City of Little Rock Parks & *

Recreation; City of Little * [UNPUBLISHED]

Rock, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: March 20, 1997

 Filed: March 28, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mae E. Gettis appeals from the district court order granting summary 1

judgment to defendants in her employment discrimination action. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment for the

reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4293 

AN ACT 

To reform the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review 

process, the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test process, and 

for other purposes. 

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

•HR 4293 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stress Test Improve3 ment Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CCAR AND DFAST REFORMS. 

5 Section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Re6 form and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5365(i)) 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

9 (A) in subparagraph (B)(i)— 

10 (i) by striking ‘‘3 different’’ and in11 serting ‘‘2 different’’; and 

12 (ii) by striking ‘‘, adverse,’’; and 

13 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(C) CCAR REQUIREMENTS.— 

15 ‘‘(i) LIMITATION ON QUALITATIVE

16 CAPITAL PLANNING OBJECTIONS.—In car17 rying out CCAR, the Board of Governors 

18 may not object to a company’s capital plan 

19 on the basis of qualitative deficiencies in 

20 the company’s capital planning process. 

21 ‘‘(ii) CCAR DEFINED.—For purposes 

22 of this subparagraph and subparagraph 

23 (E), the term ‘CCAR’ means the Com24 prehensive Capital Analysis and Review es25 tablished by the Board of Governors.’’; and 

26 (2) in paragraph (2)— 
3 

•HR 4293 EH

1 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

2 ‘‘semiannual’’ and inserting ‘‘annual’’; and 

3 (B) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ‘‘3 

4 different sets of conditions, including baseline, 

5 adverse,’’ and inserting ‘‘2 different sets of con6 ditions, including baseline’’. 

7 SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

8 The amendments made by this Act may not be con9 strued to prohibit an appropriate Federal banking agency 

10 (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance 

11 Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)) from— 

12 (1) ensuring the safety and soundness of an en13 tity regulated by such an appropriate Federal bank14 ing agency; and 

15 (2) ensuring compliance with applicable laws, 

16 regulations, and supervisory policies, and the fol17 lowing of appropriate guidance, by an entity regu18 lated by such an appropriate Federal banking agen19 cy. 

20 SEC. 4. REDUCTION OF SURPLUS FUNDS OF FEDERAL RE21 SERVE BANKS. 

22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal 

23 Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 289(a)(3)(A)) is amended by 

24 striking ‘‘$7,500,000,000’’ and inserting 

25 ‘‘$7,480,000,000’’. 
4 

•HR 4293 EH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall take ef2 fect on June 1, 2018. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 11, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4293 

AN ACT 

To reform the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and 

process, and for other purposes. Review process, the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test
#### Earl CAMPLAIN, Petitioner, v. R. R. RAINES, Warden Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-13069.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 4, 1961.

Earl Camplain, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BUSSEY, Judge.

Petitioner filed herein an application for a writ of habeas corpus, to secure his release from confinement in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

The record before the court reflects that petitioner was charged with the crime of robbery with a dangerous weapon in the district court of Jefferson County, Oklahoma, wherein said petitioner was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, for which he received a sentence of forty years in the State Penitentiary.

As grounds for relief the petitioner alleges that he is being restrained of his liberty without due process of law under a void judgment and sentence. He states in his petition that he entered a plea of guilty to the charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon upon the advice of court-appointed counsel; that his counsel was aware at the time he advised him to enter a plea of guilty, that the county attorney had agreed to recommend a sentence of forty years, while counsel had led petitioner to believe that the county attorney would recommend a sentence of ten years in the penitentiary; that petitioner immediately attempted to withdraw his 'plea of guilty, and to enter a plea of not guilty; that the court refused to permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty, and proceeded to pronounce judgment and sentence.

It has been called to the attention of the court by the Attorney General that after petitioner’s conviction his case was appealed to this court and affirmed, and that the questions involved in the appeal case were substantially the same as the questions presented in this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Camplain v. State, Okl.Cr., 362 P.2d 464.

This court has stated in numerous decisions that it would not issue a writ of habeas *399corpus where accused has appealed his judgment of conviction, the conviction is affirmed *and*questions raised in habeas corpus proceedings were in existence and known to petitioner at time of appeal and were matters which properly should have been presented by appeal. Ward v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 360 P.2d 953, and cases cited therein.

For the reasons above stated the writ is denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. DeFAZIO:
       H.R. 6245.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8:
       To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by 
     securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the 
     exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
       To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
```
##### 



Exhibit 11

POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

|  |  |                                                                                  |  |   |            |      |  |      |            |  |  | 
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | - | ---------- | ---- |  | ---- | ---------- |  |  | 
|  |  |                                                                                  |  |   |            | 2003 |  | 2002
|  |  |                                                                                  |  |   |            |      |  |     
|A |  | Net (loss) income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)                        |  | $ | (126.3     | )    |  | $    | 53.6       | 
|B |  | Items adjusting net (loss) income ($ millions)                                   |  | $ | 46.5       |      |  | $    | 7.0        | 
|C |  | Net (loss) income, US GAAP ($ millions)                                          |  | $ | (79.8      | )    |  | $    | 60.6       | 
|D |  | Weighted average number of shares outstanding                                    |  |   | 52,230,000 |      |  |      | 52,021,000 | 
|E |  | Net additional shares issuable for diluted (loss) earnings per share calculation |  |   |           |      |  |      | 295,000    | 
|  |  | CANADIAN GAAP                                                                    |  |   |            |      |  |      |            | 
|  |  | Basic (loss) earnings per share (A/D)                                            |  | $ | (2.42      | )    |  | $    | 1.03       | 
|  |  | Diluted (loss) earnings per share (A/(D+E))                                      |  | $ | (2.42      | )    |  | $    | 1.03       | 
|  |  | UNITED STATES GAAP                                                               |  |   |            |      |  |      |            | 
|  |  | Basic (loss) earnings per share (C/D)                                            |  | $ | (1.53      | )    |  | $    | 1.16       | 
|  |  | Diluted (loss) earnings per share (C/(D+E))                                      |  | $ | (1.53      | )    |  | $    | 1.16       |
# C_2008107EN.01001802.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 February 2008 — Europol Frost-Food GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

(Case C-65/08)

(2008/C 107/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Europol Frost-Food GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

Defendant:

Question referred

Is additional note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version of Regulations (EC) Nos 2388/2000 (1) and 2031/2001 (2) valid?

1

2

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2000 L 264, p. 1, and OJ 2000 L 276, p. 92).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1).

2

---
Exhibit 10.3
 
 [  ]
 RECITALS
  [date]
  Grant of the Option
 Duration




---



##### 



Certain Other Terminations of Employment
    Exercise of Option
  2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



Transactions
 No Right to Continued Employment
 Legend on Certificates provided
 Transferability
 Taxes
 Securities Laws
 Notices
 4




---



##### 



Choice of Law
 Option Subject to Plan
 Miscellaneous
 Signature in Counterparts
  5




---



##### 



EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONBy:Name:Title: Agreed and acknowledged as
of the date first above written:[participants name]Number of time-vesting Shares
subject to the Option:Option Price:  $