alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|     |  |             
|---- |  | ------------
|LOGO |  | Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



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)



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), the undersigned officer of Alumina Limited, an Australian corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) 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 Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|                     |  | 
|Dated: June 28, 2005 |  |  |  | LOGO  
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | John Marlay            
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
# Ashtabula - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Eastgate Regional Council of Governments Executive Director Jim Kinnick Email &#160;&#x6a;&#x6b;&#105;n&#x6e;&#x69;&#99;k&#64;&#x65;&#x61;&#115;t&#x67;&#x61;&#116;&#101;c&#x6f;&#x67;&#46;o&#x72;&#x67;The post Eastgate Regional Council of Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# Brooke - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Region 11–Brooke-Hancock Regional Planning and Development Council Executive Director Mike Paprocki Email &#x6d;&#x69;&#x6b;&#101;&#112;ap&#x40;&#x62;&#x68;&#x6a;&#109;&#112;c&#46;&#x6f;&#x72;&#x67;The post Region 11–Brooke-Hancock Regional Planning and Development Council appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2009082EN.01003603.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/36

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 February 2009 — Cavalhal Garcia v Council

(Case F-40/08) (1)

1

(Staff case - Former officials - Remuneration - Education allowance - Refusal to grant - Action out of time - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2009/C 82/64)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Daniela Paula Cavalhal Garcia (Sines, Portugal) (represented by: Antas da Cunha, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Monteiro, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Council's decision removing the right to the education allowance as regards the applicant's daughter.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Ms Carvalhal Garcia is to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Carvalhal Garcia is to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008, p. 33.

1

---
# Shelby - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham Executive Director Charles Ball Email &#x63;&#x62;&#x61;&#x6c;&#108;&#64;&#114;&#112;cgb&#x2e;&#x6f;&#x72;&#x67;The post Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2010024EN.01004801.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2009 — Antwerpse Bouwwerken v European Commission

(Case T-195/08) (1)

1

(Public procurement - Community tendering procedure - Construction of a reference materials production hall - Rejection of a tender - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Interpretation of a condition laid down in the contract documents - Compliance of a tender with the conditions laid down in the contract documents - Exercise of the power to request clarification of tenders - Action for damages)

2010/C 24/83

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Antwerpse Bouwwerken NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented initially by: J. Verbist and D. de Keuster, and subsequently by: J. Verbist, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke and A. Vandervennet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, acting as Agent, and by M. Gelders, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for, firstly, annulment of the decision of the Commission rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in a restricted public procurement procedure concerning the construction of a reference materials production hall in the grounds of the Institut des matériaux et mesures de référence (Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements) in Geel (Belgium) and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, compensation for the damage purportedly suffered by the applicant by reason of that decision of the Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Antwerpse Bouwwerken NV to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief in Case T 195/08 R. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Antwerpse Bouwwerken NV to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief in Case T 195/08 R.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 437 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to codify authority under 

existing grant guidance authorizing use of Urban Area Security Initiative 

and State Homeland Security Grant Program funding for enhancing 

medical preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2017 

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself and Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to codify 

authority under existing grant guidance authorizing use 

of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland 

Security Grant Program funding for enhancing medical 

preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medical Preparedness 

5 Allowable Use Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 437 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF CERTAIN HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT 

2 FUNDS FOR ENHANCING MEDICAL PRE3 PAREDNESS, MEDICAL SURGE CAPACITY, 

4 AND MASS PROPHYLAXIS CAPABILITIES. 

5 Section 2008 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

6 (6 U.S.C. 609) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)— 

8 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (10) 

9 through (14) as paragraphs (11) through (15), 

10 respectively; and 

11 (B) by inserting after paragraph (9) the 

12 following new paragraph (10): 

13 ‘‘(10) enhancing medical preparedness, medical 

14 surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities, in15 cluding the development and maintenance of an ini16 tial pharmaceutical stockpile, including medical kits, 

17 and diagnostics sufficient to protect first responders, 

18 their families, immediate victims, and vulnerable 

19 populations from a chemical or biological event;’’; 

20 and 

21 (2) in subsection (b)(3)(B), by striking ‘‘sub22 section (a)(10)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(11)’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2011319EN.01001401.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB

(Case T-461/08) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of services in the form of assistance in the maintenance, support and development of an information technology system - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Contract awarded to another tenderer - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Jurisdiction - Obligation to state reasons - Right to an effective remedy - Transparency - Proportionality - Equal treatment and non-discrimination - Selection and award criteria - Action for damages - Admissibility - Loss of profit)

2011/C 319/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and P. Katsimani, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz and T. Pietilä, Agents, and J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the EIB’s decision of 31 January 2008 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in connection with a call for tenders for the provision of services in the form of assistance in the maintenance, support and development of an information technology system and to award the contract to another tenderer, on the basis of Articles 225 EC and 230 EC, and, second, for damages, on the basis of Articles 225 EC, 235 EC and 288 EC.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) not to accept the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in the context of call for tenders 2007/S 176-215155 for the provision of services in the form of ‘assistance in the maintenance, support and development of the Loans Front Office system (Serapis)’ and to award the contract to Sybase BVBA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) not to accept the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in the context of call for tenders 2007/S 176-215155 for the provision of services in the form of ‘assistance in the maintenance, support and development of the Loans Front Office system (Serapis)’ and to award the contract to Sybase BVBA;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the EIB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julio Acevedo, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered February 3, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that his right to be present during the impanelling of the jury was impaired by his absence from conferences in a corridor outside of the courtroom during which counsel, after a voir dire conducted in open court, advised the Trial Judge of their peremptory and for-cause jury challenges. Those challenges were thereafter exercised in the defendant’s presence, in open court. The defendant’s contention in this regard is without merit *(see, People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469; *People v Mitchell,*174 AD2d 579; *People v Ramos,*173 AD2d 748). Kunzeman, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4574 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 108 West Schick Road in Bloomingdale, Illinois, as the ‘‘Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4574 RFS

1 SECTION 1. BLOOMINGDALE VETERANS MEMORIAL POST 

2 OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

4 Postal Service located at 108 West Schick Road in 

5 Bloomingdale, Illinois, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post Office Build7 ing’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Bloomingdale Vet12 erans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 4.12


                           SHORT TERM PROMISSORY NOTE

US$25,000.00                                                    October 7, 2005

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Voyager One, Inc. promises to pay to the order of
Quest Manufacturing, Inc. at such place as the holder of this Note may from time
to time designate, the principal sum of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars
(US$25,000.00) together with simple interest at the rate of six percent (6) per
annum on the principal balance.

         The note matures and becomes due anytime on demand. The amount of the
payment shall be an amount equal to the outstanding principal and unpaid
interest.

         All payments on account of the indebtedness evidenced by this note
shall be first applied to interest on the unpaid principal balance and the
remainder to principal.

         All parties to this note severally waive presentment for payment,
notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest.

         This note shall be effective October 7, 2005 regardless of when it is
signed.

    "Payor"                                               "Payee"

Voyager One, Inc.                                 Quest Manufacturing, Inc.
859 West End Court                                2503 Spring Ridge Drive-Unit F
Suite I                                           Spring Grove, IL 60081
Vernon Hills, IL 60061                            Phone: (815) 675-2442
Phone: 847-984-6200                               Fax: (815) 675-3109
Fax: 847-984-6201

BY: /s/ Sebastien C. Dufort                       BY: /s/ John A. Lichter
    ------------------------                          -------------------
      SIGNATURE & DATE                                  SIGNATURE & DATE
      SEBASTIEN C. DUFORT                               JOHN A. LICHTER
      PRESIDENT                                         CEO
# C_2009055EN.01001602.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 29 December 2008 — Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

(Case C-578/08)

(2009/C 55/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rhimou Chakroun

Applicant:

Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Should the phrase ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ in Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification be interpreted as permitting a Member State to make an arrangement in respect of family reunification which results in family reunification not being granted to a sponsor who has provided evidence of having stable and regular resources to meet general subsistence costs, but who, given the level of such resources, shall nevertheless be entitled to claim special assistance to meet exceptional, individually determined, essential living costs, income-related remission of charges by municipal authorities, or income-support measures in the context of municipal minimum income policies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should the phrase ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ in Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification be interpreted as permitting a Member State to make an arrangement in respect of family reunification which results in family reunification not being granted to a sponsor who has provided evidence of having stable and regular resources to meet general subsistence costs, but who, given the level of such resources, shall nevertheless be entitled to claim special assistance to meet exceptional, individually determined, essential living costs, income-related remission of charges by municipal authorities, or income-support measures in the context of municipal minimum income policies?

1

| 2. | Should Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, in particular Article 2(d), be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in applying the resource requirement pursuant to Article 7(1)(c), makes a distinction according to whether a family relationship arose before or after the entry of the resident of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, in particular Article 2(d), be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in applying the resource requirement pursuant to Article 7(1)(c), makes a distinction according to whether a family relationship arose before or after the entry of the resident of the Member State?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ L 251, p. 12).

1

---
# C_2008092EN.01003601.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/36

---

Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission

(Case T-43/08)

(2008/C 92/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shetland Islands Council (represented by: E. Whiteford, Barrister, R. Murray, Solicitor and R. Thompson QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the decision; and

| — | the costs of this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

the costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a public authority that made payments to the fisheries sector under the scope of two general aid measures, named ‘Aid to Fish Catching and Processing Industry’ and ‘Aid to the Fish Farming Industry’ consisting of different types of aid schemes. The Commission found that the aid which the United Kingdom implemented on the basis of the ‘Fish Factory Improvement Scheme’ was incompatible with the common market, in so far as it concerned the amount of GBP 92 007, granted on 13 August 1997, 7 January 1999, 25 February 1999, 10 December 1999, 19 January 2001 and 15 December 2004.

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C 38/2006 (ex NN 93/2005) of 13 November 2007 concerning the ‘Fish Factory Improvement Scheme’ implemented in the United Kingdom. In particular, the applicant seeks annulment of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the contested decision on the ground that the Commission erred in finding that recovery of payments would be compatible with:

| (1) | Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1); and |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1); and

1

| (2) | the general principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and of equality of treatment. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the general principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and of equality of treatment.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1).

1

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50804 Summary Calendar

__________________ CARLOS ADMEDTH BENITEZ-ESCOBAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-95-CV-18 - - - - - - - - - - September 18, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos Admedth Benitez-Escobar (Benitez) appeals from the district court's order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. He argues that his criminal prosecution and the administrative forfeiture of automobile violated the Fifth Amendment prohibition of double jeopardy. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that jeopardy did not attach because Benitez wasNo. 95-50804 -2- not a party to the administrative forfeiture and the in rem civil forfeiture does not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes. United States v. Morgan , 84 F.3d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Ursery , 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2149 (1996). AFFIRMED.