alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Schuylkill - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance Executive Director Jeffrey Box Email &#160;inf&#111;&#64;&#110;&#101;&#x70;&#x61;&#x2d;&#x61;&#x6c;&#x6c;&#x69;anc&#101;&#46;&#111;&#114;&#103;The post Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-192-2023]

On September 28, 2023, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Brunswick and Glynn County Development Authority, grantee of FTZ 144, requesting an expansion of Subzone 144C subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 144, on behalf of Orgill, Inc., in Tifton, Georgia.

                    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (88 FR 69116, October 5, 2023). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to expand Subzone 144C was approved on December 26, 2023, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 144's 2,000-acre activation limit.                

Dated: December 26, 2023.

Camille R. Evans,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-28811 Filed 12-29-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# C_2008107EN.01002001.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 21 February 2008 — The Queen on the application of Christopher Mellor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

(Case C-75/08)

(2008/C 107/31)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christopher Mellor

Applicant:

Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Whether under Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) as amended by directives 97/11/EC (2) and 2003/35/EC (3) (‘the Directive’) Member States must make available to the public reasons for a determination that in respect of an Annex II project there is no requirement to subject the project to assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Whether under Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) as amended by directives 97/11/EC (2) and 2003/35/EC (3) (‘the Directive’) Member States must make available to the public reasons for a determination that in respect of an Annex II project there is no requirement to subject the project to assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive?

1

2

3

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative whether that requirement was satisfied by the content of the letter dated 4 December 2006 from the Secretary of State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative whether that requirement was satisfied by the content of the letter dated 4 December 2006 from the Secretary of State?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, what is the extent of the requirement to give reasons in this context? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, what is the extent of the requirement to give reasons in this context?

---

(1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175, p. 40).

1

(2)  OJ L 73, p. 5.

2

(3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ L 156, p. 17).

3

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4528 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4528

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation 
                   statutes, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012.

    Section 4(c)(1) of the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 (16 U.S.C. 
1827a(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and retained'' after ``landed''.

SEC. 2. SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2010.

    The Act entitled ``An Act to amend the High Seas Driftnet Fishing 
Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act to improve the conservation of sharks'', approved 
January 4, 2011 (Public Law 111-348; 124 Stat. 3668), is amended--
            (1) by striking section 104 and inserting the following:

``SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    ``Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title shall 
be construed as affecting, altering, or diminishing in any way the 
authority of the Secretary of Commerce to establish such conservation 
and management measures as the Secretary considers necessary and 
appropriate under sections 302(a)(3) and 304(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3), 
1854(g)).''; and
            (2) in section 1, by striking the item relating to section 
        104 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 104. Rule of construction.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4528

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation 
                   statutes, and for other purposes.
```
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00417-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.J., J.J., V.J., AND C.J.X., CHILDREN,

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-000408-CV-85

ORDER

Appellants’ pro se response to their counsel’s Anders brief was due March 7, 2017. 

They request an extension of time in the amount of 20 days to file the response. 

Appellants’ request is granted. The pro se response is due March 27, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Order issued and filed March 22, 2017
# C_2011030EN.01003602.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Commission v Strack

(Case T-526/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Rejection of candidature - Appointment to a post of head of unit - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action for damages - Non-material damage)

2011/C 30/64

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kramer and B. Eggers, agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 25 September 2008 in Case F-44/05 Strack v Commission (not published in the ECR) seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Strack

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 25 September 2008 in Case F-44/05 Strack v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 25 September 2008 in Case F-44/05 Strack v Commission.

| 2. | Dismisses the cross-appeal as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the cross-appeal as to the remainder.

| 3. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling on the claims for annulment of the decision to appoint Mr A. to the post of head of the ‘Calls for tenders and contracts’ unit of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities and the decision to reject Mr Guido Strack’s candidature for that post, on the claims for compensation for the non-material damage purportedly suffered by Mr Strack in the sum of EUR 200, and on costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling on the claims for annulment of the decision to appoint Mr A. to the post of head of the ‘Calls for tenders and contracts’ unit of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities and the decision to reject Mr Guido Strack’s candidature for that post, on the claims for compensation for the non-material damage purportedly suffered by Mr Strack in the sum of EUR 200, and on costs.

| 4. | Costs reserved. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Costs reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0184 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-118-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
# Ashe - Appalachian Regional Commission

- High Country Council of Governments Executive Director Julie Wiggins Email  &#106;&#119;&#x69;g&#103;&#x69;&#x6e;s&#64;&#x68;&#x63;c&#111;&#x67;&#46;&#111;&#x72;&#x67;The post High Country Council of Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert McAllister, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cheetah Oil & Gas
      Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd.                                                               

Dated: March 31, 2010

/s/ Robert McAllister
Robert McAllisterPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer) Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Cheetah Oil
& Gas Ltd. and will be retained by Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# C_2008247EN.01002602.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/26

---

Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Ziliene v Parliament

(Case F-70/08)

(2008/C 247/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Veronika Ziliene (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 17 July 2007 not to grant the applicant the daily allowance referred to in Article 10 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and, second, order the defendant to pay the daily allowances from the date the applicant took up his duties as an official, plus interest along with EUR 1 damages for the non-material loss suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 17 July 2007 not to grant the applicant the daily allowance referred to in Article 10 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 17 July 2007 not to grant the applicant the daily allowance referred to in Article 10 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the daily allowances from the date the applicant took up his duties as an official, plus interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations applicable during the periods concerned plus two percentage points, until payment in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the daily allowances from the date the applicant took up his duties as an official, plus interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations applicable during the periods concerned plus two percentage points, until payment in full;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 1 damages for the non-material loss suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 1 damages for the non-material loss suffered;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 – Commission v Spain**

**(Case C‐113/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/49/EC – Investment firms and credit institutions – Capital adequacy – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 20)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (recast) (OJ 2006 L 177, p. 201). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (recast) and, in particular, Articles 17, 22 to 25, 30, 33, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44 and 50 and Annexes I, II and VII, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. LYNN A. WESTMORELAND

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 537, 538, and 539.
  I was unavoidably detained in Georgia due to a scheduling issue, and 
could not return to Washington in time to cast my vote.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 537, 
and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 538, and 539.

                          ____________________
```
Order entered October 29, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00926 - CV SUN KYUM CHA A/K/A S TEPHEN CHA , ET AL. , Appellant s V. BRANCH BANKING AND T RUST COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 13 - 15020 

### O RDER We GRANT appellants’ October 27, 2014 second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. We ORDER the brief tendered to this Court by appellants on October 27, 2014 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASIDNGTON, DC 

Anoka Air, Inc., et a! 

Complainant, 

v. FAA Docket No. 16-11-12 

Metropolitan Airports Commission 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CPR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CPR, Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to May 7, 2015. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

D · ector of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on ~{/'vttCl ( ( 2015, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time 

addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Steven M. Taber, Esq. 

Taber Law Group 

13 Atlanta 

Irvine, CA 92620 

Facsimile: (714) 707-4282 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Thomas W. Anderson, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Metropolitan Airports Commission 

6040 28th Avenue South 

Minneapolis, MN 55450 

Facsimile: (612) 726-5306 

Pablo 0. Niiesch, Esq. 

Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 

1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Facsimile: (202) 393-2866 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

(

1

/f/. ) /.A ):_ &[(A~./ bi l/L/"-

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
#### Mary Forte, Respondent, *v.*Norberto Velez et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

October 2, 1959.

*Delukey S Shapiro (Stanley Shapiro*of counsel), for appellants.

*Henry Cron*and *Irving Wallenstein*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Landlord waived the breach of covenant by accepting rent with knowledge of such breach. Landlord also failed to establish by competent proof that the occupancy here involved was illegal because of the requirements of law and subjected her to civil or criminal penalties. This disposition *784is without prejudice to the institution of a new proceeding, if the landlord be so advised, in the event that a violation is placed against the property by competent authority.

The final order should be unanimously reversed, with $30 costs to tenants and petition dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Final order reversed, etc.
EXHIBIT
        32.2





CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350


AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
        THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
        Brad
        E. Herr, Chief Financial Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the "Company")
        do
        hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
        knowledge:





This
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
        March 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.




Date:  May
        14,
        2007








/s/Brad
        E. Herr





Brad
        E.
        Herr


Chief
        Financial Officer