alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Appendix B

February 11 , 2015

Dave Akers AviTronics Integrated Solutions, LLC P.O. Box 1644 Rockwall, TX 75087

Re: Orange, Texas Landfill Ort h orectified Imaging

Dear Mr. Akers

,

As previously discussed, Technical Applications and Consulting, LLC has been retained to provide airborne data acquisition in support of Orange Landfill’s future planning in Orange, Texas. Orange
Landfill ’s planning initiative is an effort to minimize an environmental impact to surrounding communities and water sources during landfill expansion. The data acquisition we can collect will be instrumental to a safe and efficient expansion by providing critical information for engineers such as topographical analytics, watershed modeling, and georectifi ed images. This imagery is time sensitive as
it must be collected in leaf

- off conditions within the next 45 days to acquire usable data that meets engineering requirements.

We explored several appropriate resources for this collection such as fixed w inged and rotary winged survey aircraf

t

, emerging UAS technology and ground surveying to determine the most optimal way to satisfy the planning requirements. In review of these resources we believe that a light UAS would be a
safe and effective alternative for this location. Considering it’s a relatively small area of approximately
780 acres it i s cost prohibitive to use fixed or rotary winged survey air craft. Furthermore the UAS will allow for lower operationa l altitudes that increases the image quality and clarity. Leveraging its capabilities and efficiency, the UAS can also provide a level of quality and precision that traditional ground surveying cannot. The high quality imagery collected in a short period of time by this resource will provide the most ideal data to assist in engineering efforts in a timely manner.

All in all, the quality and accuracy of this data collection is extremely important due to the fact that the expansion of this landfill, if not done correctly

, could adversely affect the environment and surrounding
communities. Ultimately the UAS is the best option considering its ability to collect the level of data needed for a project of this caliber in the time given to retrieve it. It can provide a service to the Orange Landfill expansion project that no other technology is capable of providing.

Please contact me if you need any additional inf ormation, I can be reached at 785.806.9542 or
tblocker@tac

- av.com

.

Respectfully,

Tracy Blocker Technical Applications & Consulting, LLC

### Appendix B

Orange Landfill Overview 30’ 17’14.70”N 93’34’ 24.40” W
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4354 

To require reporting by the National Science Foundation on requests for 

funding research that were not granted and had the greatest potential 

for promoting scientific progress and advancing national health, prosperity, and welfare, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2017 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To require reporting by the National Science Foundation 

on requests for funding research that were not granted 

and had the greatest potential for promoting scientific 

progress and advancing national health, prosperity, and 

welfare, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Missed Opportunities 

5 in Science and Engineering Research Act of 2017’’. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4354 IH

1 SEC. 2. ANNUAL REPORTING BY NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUN2 DATION ON MISSED OPPORTUNITIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 30 of each 

4 fiscal year starting with fiscal year 2017 through fiscal 

5 year 2021, the Director of the National Science Founda6 tion (in this section, referred to as the ‘‘Director’’) shall 

7 submit to Congress a report on the fiscal health of the 

8 National Science Foundation research enterprise and the 

9 volume of worthy but unfunded grant proposals submitted 

10 to the National Science Foundation in the preceding fiscal 

11 year. Such report shall identify— 

12 (1) the success rate of grant applications re13 viewed during such fiscal year; 

14 (2) the top two grant applications reviewed dur15 ing such fiscal year that were not selected for fund16 ing; and 

17 (3) if the success rate described in paragraph 

18 (1) is less than 32 percent, the top applications for 

19 grants that were not selected for funding but would 

20 have been so selected if the Foundation had achieved 

21 a success rate of 32 percent or greater for the fiscal 

22 year. 

23 (b) TRADE SECRETS AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMA24 TION.—This section does not authorize the Secretary to 

25 disclose any information that is a trade secret or confiden26 tial information subject to section 552(b)(4) of title 5, 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4354 IH

1 United States Code, or section 1905 of title 18, United 

2 States Code. 

3 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 (1) SUCCESS RATE.—The term ‘‘success rate’’ 

5 means the percentage of grant applications reviewed 

6 by the Director that received funding. 

7 (2) TOP.—The term ‘‘top’’, with respect to a 

8 grant application, means that such application has 

9 been determined by the Director to have greater po10 tential than any other grant applications submitted 

11 to the Director for— 

12 (A) promoting any field of fundamental 

13 science or engineering; 

14 (B) advancing the national health, pros15 perity, and welfare; or 

16 (C) securing the national defense. 

Æ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 89001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28298]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 548]


Delegation of Authority; Overseas Real Property Management

    By virtue of the authority of the Secretary of State pursuant to 
the laws of the United States, and as delegated by Department of State 
Delegation of Authority No. 514, I hereby delegate to the Director of 
Overseas Buildings Operations, to the extent authorized by law, all 
functions and authorities for overseas real property management as 
described in the Foreign Service Buildings Act, 1926, as amended (22 
U.S.C. ch. 8).
    The functions delegated herein may be re-delegated, to the extent 
authorized by law. This delegation of authority does not revoke, 
supersede, or affect any other delegation of authority. Any authority 
covered by this delegation may also be exercised by the Secretary, the 
Deputy Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, 
and the Under Secretary for Management.
    This document will be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: December 15, 2023.
John R. Bass,
Under Secretary for Management, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2023-28298 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
# C_2008183EN.01001401.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/14

---

Action brought on 14 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-197/08)

(2008/C 183/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force a system of minimum prices for cigarettes sold in France, despite a prohibition on the sale of tobacco products ‘at a promotional price contrary to the aims of public health’, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59/EC (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force a system of minimum prices for cigarettes sold in France, despite a prohibition on the sale of tobacco products ‘at a promotional price contrary to the aims of public health’, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59/EC (1);

1

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59/EC, as interpreted by the Court, clearly prohibits the intervention of the Member States in imposing, in a discretionary manner, minimum prices for the retail sale of manufactured tobacco products. Since they prevent manufacturers and importers from other countries from freely determining the maximum retail selling price of each of their products, such minimum prices restrict price competition and harm the internal market.

Furthermore, with regard to the need alleged by the defendant to derogate from the above provision in order to protect public health, the Commission does not dispute that, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary to derogate from the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning free movement of goods in order to achieve that objective. However, in the present case, as the Court has already held, the objective of protecting public health can adequately be pursued by way of increased taxation on manufactured tobacco products, which preserves the principle of free determination of prices.

---

(1)  Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ L 291, p. 40).

1

---
# C_2009082EN.01002502.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2009 — Unity OSG FZE v Council and EUPOL Afghanistan

(Case T-511/08 R) (1)

1

(Application for interim measures - Public procurement - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Loss of opportunity - No urgency)

(2009/C 82/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unity OSG FZE (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: C. Bryant and J. McEwen, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Marhic and A. Vitro, Agents) and European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan) (Kabul, Afghanistan)

Defendants:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of the decision, taken by EUPOL Afghanistan in the context of a call for tenders, to reject the applicant's tender and to award the contract for the provision of guarding and close protection services in Afghanistan to another tenderer.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.

1

---
# C_2010011EN.01001903.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-309/08) (1)

1

2010/C 11/33

Language of the case: Polish

Language of the case: Polish

The President of Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

1

---
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




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Reed’s, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher J. Reed, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:




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




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











Dated:   December 7, 2009








/s/ Christopher J.
Reed


Christopher
J. Reed


Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)







A signed
original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
# C_2010234EN.01003402.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2010 — Toqueville v OHIM — Schiesaro (TOCQUEVILLE 13)

(Case T-510/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark TOCQUEVILLE 13 - Failure to comply with the time-limit for appealing against a revocation decision - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 234/60

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Toqueville Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: S. Bariatti, I Palombella and E. Cucchiara, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Sempio, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Marco Schiesaro (Limbiate, Italy) (represented by: A. Canella and D. Camaiora, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of 26 August 2008 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 829/2008-2) concerning the applicant’s application for restitutio in integrum

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Toqueville Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Toqueville Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.

1

---
# C_2010113EN.01007802.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/78

---

Order of the General Court of 2 March 2010 — Aldi v OHIM — Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes (ALDI)

(Case T-298/08) (1)

1

2010/C 113/113

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  C 247, 27.9.2008.

1

---
#### Lee John ROSS, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12914.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 28, 1960.

*374Forney Sandlin, Harold Shoemake, Muskogee, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence by Lee John Ross, plaintiff in error, defendant below, consisting of a $50 fine and confinement in the county jail for 10 days for the crime of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, 47 O.S.A. § 93, as amended. The offense was allegedly committed in Muskogee, Oklahoma, on December 25, 1959, and the defendant was charged by information in the County Court of Muskogee, Oklahoma, on December 29, 1959. The case was tried by a jury and the defendant was convicted and judgment and sentence was left to the trial court. The judgment and sentence appealed from was made and entered on February 13, 1960. The defendant gave notice in open court of his intention to appeal from the judgment and sentence. The state has filed its motion to dismiss the appeal.

The basis for the motion is hereinafter set forth. The casemade was served on May 2, 1960, and settled on May 10, 1960-No extension of time was obtained for preparing, serving, signing, and settling of the case within 15 days after entry of the judgment, as allowed in 12 O.S.A. § 958, and 22 O.S.A. § 1059. The only order of extension of time was entered in the within case attempting to obtain additional time for perfecting the casemade and serving same for appeal, was on April 4, 1960, wherein, the defendant obtained an order of 30 days to serve the casemade. The judgment and sentence having been entered on February 12, 1960, the time for obtaining an extension of time for preparing, serving and settling the casemade expired! on February 27, 1960. Any attempt to extend the span of its usefulness by an order after that date was a nullity. Cullens v. State, Okl.Cr., 325 P.2d 446.

Moreover, the appeal should have-been lodged herein, within 60 days after the judgment and sentence on February 12, 1960, or a valid extension thereof granted! by the trial court not in excess of an additional 60 days, 22 O.S.A. § 1054. No such extension was ever obtained and the appeal' was lodged herein on June 1, 1960, 50 days, •beyond the time under the law for perfecting said appeal, on April 12, 1960. The attempted appeal not being within the time allowed by law is a nullity for this further reason. McLean v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 271, 244 P.2d 335, and numerous other cases. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

POWELL, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.
# C_2009282EN.01004302.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/43

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — JOOP! v OHIM (!)

(Case T-75/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative Community trade mark representing an exclamation mark - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 282/81

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: JOOP! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt-Hollburg, W. Möllering, A. Löhde, H. Leo, A. Witte, T. Frank, A. Theil, H.-P. Rühland, B. Willers and T. Rein, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2007 (Case R 1134/2007-1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders JOOP! GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders JOOP! GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
**Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM – Novartis (ZYDUS)**

**(Case T-288/08)**

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ZYDUS — Earlier Community word mark ZIMBUS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
— Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 62-67)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 1092/2007‐2), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the application for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Cadila Healthcare Ltd to pay the costs. |
# C_2010161EN.01004001.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2010 — Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted black matt bottle)

(Case T-110/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark representing a frosted black matt bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2010/C 161/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Freixenet, SA (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia, Spain) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2007 (Case R 104/2001-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a frosted black matt bottle as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Freixenet, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Freixenet, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

---
Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Premier Development & Investment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Eric R. Boyer, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of this
12th day of November, 2004.



/s/ Eric R. Boyer
-------------------------------
Eric R. Boyer
President and CEO
Premier Development & Investment, Inc.