alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          478898
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                        18675093
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3267294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                15932204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        6123084
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  15392204
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2909744
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2630434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (3344)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              541643
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (258989)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (258989)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (15.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4290 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4290

   To require the Attorney General to study whether an individual's 
history of domestic violence can be used to determine the likelihood of 
              such individual committing a mass shooting.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2017

 Mr. Quigley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Attorney General to study whether an individual's 
history of domestic violence can be used to determine the likelihood of 
              such individual committing a mass shooting.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY ON WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL'S HISTORY OF DOMESTIC 
              VIOLENCE CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH 
              INDIVIDUAL COMMITTING A MASS SHOOTING.

    Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Attorney General of the United States shall complete a study and 
submit a report to the Congress on whether an individual's history of 
domestic violence can be used to determine the likelihood of such 
individual committing a mass shooting.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.1







Information Concerning Executive Compensation


 


On January 06, 2017, the Compensation Committee of HomeFed Corporation (the “Company”) approved annual salary increases (effective January 1, 2017) and discretionary 2016 cash bonuses for each of the Company’s executive officers who were included as named executive officers in the Company’s 2016 proxy statement.







	
Name and Title

	 	
Base Salary in 2017

	 	 	
Bonus Award for 20161

	 
	
Paul J. Borden

	 	
$

	
390,770

	 	 	
$

	
254,2322

	
 


	
President and

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Chief Executive Officer

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
John Kent Aden, Jr.

	 	
$

	
319,707

	 	 	
$

	
209,403

	 
	
Vice President

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Christian E. Foulger

	 	
$

	
245,714

	 	 	
$

	
207,227

	 
	
Vice President

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Erin N. Ruhe

	 	
$

	
234,462

	 	 	
$

	
206,896

	 
	
Vice President,

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Treasurer and Controller

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 












1 Includes a holiday bonus paid to each of the named executive officers based on a percentage of salary of $11,493 for Mr. Borden, $9,403 for Mr. Aden, $7,227 for Mr. Foulger and $6,896 for Ms. Ruhe.


 


2 Also includes a gross-up bonus of $42,739 for Mr. Borden as reimbursement for taxes payable on travel, commuting and lodging expenses.
Keith
B. Westergaard


12757-54
Avenue, Surrey, BC V3X 3Cl


(604)
970-4992


 


September
30, 2016


 


DSG
Global Inc.


5455
— 152nd Street


Suite
214


Surrey,
BC


V3S
5A5


 


Attention:
Robert Silzer


 


Resignation
as a Director of


DSG
Global Inc.


(Company)


 


To
the Company


 


I
hereby resign as a Director of DSG Global Inc. My resignation is effective immediately.


 


(In
the event that there is a prescribed form for Resignation as Director of DSG Global Inc. required, please send said form to me
by email in order that I can complete and return the same forth with.)


 


	Yours
    truly,	 
	 	 
	/s/
    Keith B. Westergaard
# C_2019016EN.01005801.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/58

---

Action brought on 9 November 2018 — Pinto Teixeira v EEAS

(Case T-667/18)

(2019/C 16/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José Manuel Pinto Teixeira (Oeiras, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 21 February 2018 by which the Appointing Authority refused to authorise him to engage in an outside activity under Article 16 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 21 February 2018 by which the Appointing Authority refused to authorise him to engage in an outside activity under Article 16 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the EEAS to pay the costs and to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 for the non-material damage suffered. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs and to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 for the non-material damage suffered.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the contested decision was adopted after the expiry of the period of 30 working days from the reception of his declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the contested decision was adopted after the expiry of the period of 30 working days from the reception of his declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment which render the contested decision unlawful, since the proposed activity is manifestly neither connected to the activity which he exercised during the last three years of service nor incompatible with the interests of the EEAS. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment which render the contested decision unlawful, since the proposed activity is manifestly neither connected to the activity which he exercised during the last three years of service nor incompatible with the interests of the EEAS.

---
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28069]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Advancing Mobile Monitoring of Intraindividual Change in 
ADRD.
    Date: February 22, 2024.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Joshua Jin-Hyouk Park, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg. Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301) 496-6208, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#016b6e726974602f7160736a35416f68692f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="caa0a5b9a2bfabe4baabb8a1fe8aa4a3a2e4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 15, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-28069 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7945

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus MYRNA JOSEPHINE HOLT WILSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:06-cv-00605; 7:98-00091-sgw) Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Myrna Josephine Holt Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Myrna Josephine Holt Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing her motion for relief of sentence as a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and then dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Finally, in accordance with United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Wilson’s notice of appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), to file a successive habeas corpus motion. To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion,- 3 - a movant must show that her claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2) relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Wilson has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny Wilson’s implicit application for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
(August 19, 1991)

#### City of New York, Respondent-Appellant, v Albert Falack, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendants.

— In an action, *inter alia,*for a permanent injunction, enjoining the defendants from the use, occupancy, maintenance and operation of specified premises which are in violation of the New York City Zoning Resolution, the New York City Nuisance Abatement Law (Administrative Code of City of New York § 7-701 *et seq.),*and the New York City Building Code (Administrative Code § 27-105 *et seq.),*the defendant Albert Falack appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 20, 1989, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment to the extent that it, *inter alia,*enjoined him from further use and occupancy of the illegal additions to his house and ordered the removal thereof, and the plaintiff City of New York cross-appeals from so much of the same order and judgment as denied its application for civil penalties.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There is no merit to the defendant Falack’s contention that the City’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. The record clearly establishes that Falack purchased a home that had been structurally altered in such a manner that it was not in compliance with several provisions of the City zoning ordinance. The record further establishes that Falack was aware of the prior owner’s unsuccessful attempts *854to obtain the necessary variances which would have excused the violations currently at issue. Accordingly, as Falack’s house is undeniably in violation of the zoning ordinance, and as his claims of discriminatory selective enforcement were not properly raised and moreover are unsubstantiated by the record *(see, Matter of 303 W. 42nd Corp. v Klein,*46 NY2d 686), the Supreme Court properly enjoined the further use of the illegal additions and directed their removal *(see, Town of E. Hampton v Buff a,*157 AD2d 714; *City of New York v Bilynn Realty Corp.,*118 AD2d 511; Administrative Code § 7-701 *et seq.).*

Nevertheless, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to assess a civil penalty against the defendant Falack *(see,*Administrative Code §§ 7-706, 26-120, 26-125). Fiber, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Speaker:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                    July 25, 2012.
       I hereby appoint the Honorable Blake Farenthold to act as 
     Speaker pro tempore on this day.
                                                  John A. Boehner,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________
```
从夏威夷向美国大陆邮寄和运输食品和农产品

动植物卫生检验局 

植物保护与检疫处

美国农业部

美国农业部 (U.S. Department of Agriculture , USDA) 动

植物卫生检验局 (Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, APHIS) 禁止或限制许多农产品从夏威夷进入美

国大陆,包括大多数新鲜水果和蔬菜以及某些植物和花卉。

原因是这些产品可能携带危险的偷渡者——入侵性害虫或

疾病。携带入侵性害虫或疾病的单个水果或单株植物就可

能造成数百万美元的损失,并导致费用昂贵的根除工作、贸

易收入损失以及食品价格上涨。

所有农产品,包括新鲜水果和蔬菜、植物、花卉和由植物或

木材制成的工艺品,在您将包裹送到航空货运办公室、邮局

或其他快递服务机构之前,必须由 APHIS 进行检查,并确

认无虫害。可对非法邮寄违禁农产品的人依法追究刑事、民

事责任。

新鲜水果和蔬菜

由于存在引入某些入侵性植物害虫和疾病的风险,因此禁

止从夏威夷向美国大陆运输或邮寄大多数新鲜水果和蔬

菜。但也有例外。新鲜菠萝和椰子经检查后允许运送。允许

运输新鲜木瓜、黃金果、释迦、香蕉、咖喱叶、火龙果、龙眼、

荔枝、山竹、红毛丹、杨桃和红薯,但必须在 USDA 批准的

机构进行处理,并包装在拥有适当标记和盖章的密封盒中。 

允许运输或邮寄加工过的水果和蔬菜。加工方法包括烹调、

干燥或冷冻。若为冷冻,所有水果在检查时必须冷冻成固

体。冷冻芒果必须去掉果核。

更多有关批准的加工方法的信息,请联系 APHIS。夏威夷当

地 APHIS 办公室的电话号码请见下页。

在检查后允许从夏威夷进入美国大陆的普通物品

n 海滩沙

n 椰子

n 商业罐装食品

n 干种子和装饰物

n 鲜花、花环和叶子(除了任何柑橘或柑橘相关的花、叶或

其他植物部分,以及翡翠葛或莫纳罗)

n 银剑树(寄生藤)

n 爱尔兰或白马铃薯

n 新鲜菠萝

n 处理过的水果,如木瓜、黃金果、释迦、香蕉、咖喱叶、

火龙果、龙眼、荔枝、山竹、红毛丹、杨桃和红薯1

n 植物和插枝2 

n 岩块和石头

n 海贝,非陆地蜗牛壳

n 种子花环和种子饰品

n 木材(包括浮木和木棍)和

木玫瑰(干燥)

1 这些水果必须在 USDA 批准的机构进行处理,并包装在有适当标记和盖章的盒子中。

2 如需证明有根植物材料,请联系夏威夷农业部。
不允许从夏威夷进入美国大陆的常见物品

n 新鲜水果和蔬菜,但经许可的除外

n 任何种类的浆果,包括新鲜的咖啡莓果和海葡萄

n 仙人掌植物或仙人掌植物部分

n 棉花植物部分,包括棉铃

n 翡翠葛或莫纳罗的鲜花

n 牛茄子和新鲜露兜树(班兰)果实

n 活昆虫和蜗牛

n 结果实的种子和新鲜的豆荚

n 土壤或土壤中的任何植物

n 甘蔗

n 空心菜(蕹菜)

n 红薯(生)

n 山梅花

此信息随时可能更改。有关最新信息,请联系当地的 APHIS 

办公室:

Honolulu (808) 834-3220 

Kona (808) 326-1252

Kauai (808) 632-2511

Hilo (808) 933-6930

Maui (808) 877-5261 

有关如何认证植物和插枝的信息,请联系夏威夷农业部

(Hawaii Department of Agriculture):

Honolulu (808) 832-0566

Hilo (808) 974-4141

Kauai (808) 241-7135

Maui (808) 872-3848

Kona (808) 326-1077

欲知详情,请访问 APHIS 网站

www.aphis.usda.gov/travel 

USDA 是公平的机会提供者、雇主及放款人。 2017 年 7 月发布

PPQ-20-004SC(Simplified Chinese) 于 2020 年 2 月稍作修改
Exhibit 32

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Form 10-K), of the Company fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: February 25, 2015

By:

/s/    JOCHEN E. TILKJochen E. TilkPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 25, 2015

By:

/s/    WAYNE R. BROWNLEEWayne R. BrownleeExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation
S-K, Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,794,530
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,135,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,508,620
<PP&E>                                       1,060,576
<DEPRECIATION>                                 372,441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,616,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,640,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,756
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,964,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,616,581
<SALES>                                     11,803,334
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,803,334
<CGS>                                        8,222,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,222,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,615,185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 75,824
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (58,860)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            134,684
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   134,684
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
#### In the Matter of Robert J. Valli, Respondent, v Sinita Walker, Respondent, and Michael J. Camardi et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Robert Previdi, Respondent, v Michael J. Camardi et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)

— In two consolidated proceedings to invalidate a petition designating Michael J. Camardi, Frank C. Quinn, Jr., Mary Jane Davies, and Thomas S. Halpin as candidates in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1991, for the nomination of that party as its candidates for the public offices of Supervisor and Members of the Town Council of the Town of North Hemp-stead, respectively, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated August 19,1991, which granted the applications.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Initially, we hold that these consolidated proceedings are not jurisdictionally defective merely because the order to show cause in Proceeding No. 2, which was amended by the court at the petitioners’ request after they were unable to personally serve certain candidates, provided for service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) on or before August 5, 1991, the last date upon which such a proceeding could be timely commenced *(see, Matter of Fuentes v D’Apice,*122 AD2d 904; *Matter of*
      *896
      *Gucciardo v Wolf,*162 AD2d 570; *Matter of Pell v Coveney,*37 NY2d 494).

However, with respect to the merits of the case, we find that a fraud was committed on the enrolled voters of the Conservative Party of Nassau County when the names of certain persons, including the Nassau County Chairman of the Conservative Party, were placed on the offending designating petition without their consent. The designating petition was therefore misleading in suggesting "that the various candidates listed intended to run together” *(Matter of Richardson v Luizzo,*64 AD2d 942, 943, *affd*45 NY2d 789; *Matter of Lufty v Gangemi,*35 NY2d 179, 182). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.