alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 20 1 5 - 3224 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 20 1 5 - CE - 0 2 6 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. 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 sam e 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 o

f 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, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

            Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. and Subsidiaries
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share
          (Dollars and Share Data in Thousands, Except Per Share Data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              As of and For the Years Ended December 31,
                                                            ---------------------------------------------
                                                               2003               2002            2001
                                                            (Restated)         (Restated)      (Restated)
                                                            ----------         ----------      ----------
<S>                                                         <C>                <C>             <C>
Weighted-Average Common Shares Outstanding                     21,909             21,611          16,529
Weighted-Average Share Equivalents Outstanding                    751                682             656
                                                             --------           --------        --------
Weighted-Average Shares and Share Equivalents Outstanding      22,660             22,293          17,185
                                                             ========           ========        ========
Net Income                                                   $ 62,187           $ 33,753        $ 32,811
                                                             ========           ========        ========
Basic Earnings Per Share                                     $   2.84           $   1.56        $   1.99
                                                             ========           ========        ========
Diluted Earnings Per Share                                   $   2.74           $   1.51        $   1.91
                                                             ========           ========        ========
</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated January 24, 2000 included in this Form 10-K, into Franchise Finance
Corporation of America's  previously filed  Registration  Statements on Form S-8
(File  No.  333-00123),  Form S-8  (File  No.  333-92897),  Form S-8  (File  No.
333-30139), Form S-3 (File No. 333-26437), and Form S-3 (File No. 33-62769).


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Phoenix, Arizona,
   March 23, 2000.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4574 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4574

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 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''.

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

SECTION 1. BLOOMINGDALE VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 108 West Schick Road in Bloomingdale, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4574

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 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''.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4553 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4553

  To require a review of the authorization, funding, management, and 
operation of the National Targeting Center and the Terrorist Screening 
                    Center, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2017

 Mr. Garrett (for himself, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Katko, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. 
 Gallagher, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Higgins of Louisiana) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
  Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and 
 Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require a review of the authorization, funding, management, and 
operation of the National Targeting Center and the Terrorist Screening 
                    Center, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Terrorist Screening and Targeting 
Review Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. GAO REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL TARGETING CENTER AND THE TERRORIST 
              SCREENING CENTER.

    Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on the Judiciary of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a 
review of the authorization, funding, management, and operation of the 
National Targeting Center (NTC) established under section 411(g)(4) of 
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 USC 211(g)(4)) and the Terrorist 
Screening Center (TSC) established under Homeland Security President 
Directive 6. Such review shall include the following:
            (1) An identification of any weaknesses or gaps in 
        coordination between the NTC and TSC.
            (2) An identification of any unnecessarily duplicative or 
        overlapping efforts between the NTC and TSC.
            (3) Recommendations on how the NTC and TSC may better 
        support and complement one another.
            (4) A cost-benefit analysis of congressional authorization 
        of the TSC.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robert J. Kish, Appellant, v Roseann L. Kish, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Judgment insofar as appealed from unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court for a hearing, in accordance with the following Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment of divorce ordering plaintiff to pay his wife’s additional attorney’s fees in the amount of $15,483.76 as well as her accountant’s fees and costs and disbursements, plaintiff argues that the court erred in awarding those amounts without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing on the amounts requested and on defendant’s ability to pay her own attorney’s fees. We agree that the court should have held a hearing with respect to the value of the legal services rendered because plaintiff requested such a hearing *(see, Berge v Berge,*159 AD2d 960). However, plaintiff made no request for a hearing with respect to the latter two awards, nor did he request a hearing on defendant’s ability to pay her own attorney’s fees, and thus has failed to preserve those aspects of the court’s order for our review. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. — Divorce.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
# C_2008327EN.01002001.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/20

---

Action brought on 27 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-463/08)

(2008/C 327/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M.A. Rabanal Suárez, acting as Agents

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, and, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, and, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit laid down to transpose Directive 2005/36/EC expired on 20 October 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 225, p. 22.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


NAME                                                 JURISDICTION    OWNERSHIP%
----                                                 ------------    ----------
Advanced Machine Programming, Inc.                   Delaware           100%
Asyst Automation, Inc.                               Massachusetts      100%
Asyst Connectivity Technologies, Inc.                Delaware           100%
Asyst Germany GmbH                                   Germany            100%
Asyst Integration Services (India) PVT, LTD.         India              100%
Asyst Japan KK                                       Japan             96.8%
Asyst Korea Co., Ltd.                                Korea              100%
Asyst Software, Inc.                                 Delaware           100%
Asyst Technologies, Inc. (FSC)                       Barbados           100%
Asyst Technologies (Far East) PTE, LTD               Singapore          100%
Asyst Technologies Malaysia Sd. Bhd.                 Malaysia           100%
Asyst Technologies (Taiwan) Ltd.                     Taiwan             100%
Asyst Technologies (U.K.) Ltd.                       United Kingdom     100%
GW Associates, Inc.                                  Delaware           100%
Hine Design Incorporated                             California         100%
Palo Alto Technologies, Inc.                         California         100%
Progressive System, Inc.                             Texas              100%
Radiance Systems, Incorporated                       California         100%
SemiFab, Inc.                                        Delaware           100%
SMIF Equipment (Tianjen) Company, Ltd.               China              100%
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4627 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize 

expenditures to combat emerging terrorist threats, including vehicular attacks, and for other purposes. 

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

•HR 4627 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Shielding Public 

3 Spaces from Vehicular Terrorism Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. 

5 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (11) of section 302 (6 U.S.C. 

7 182), by inserting ‘‘research and development to 

8 combat emerging terrorist threats, such as vehicular 

9 attacks, and’’ before ‘‘the long-term’’; and 

10 (2) in subparagraph (B) of section 308(b)(2) (6 

11 U.S.C. 188(b)(2))— 

12 (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by 

13 striking ‘‘expertise in—’’ and inserting ‘‘exper14 tise in the following:’’; 

15 (B) by redesignating clause (xiv) as clause 

16 (xv); and 

17 (C) by inserting after clause (xiii) the fol18 lowing new clause: 

19 ‘‘(xiv) Combating emerging terrorist 

20 threats, including vehicular attacks.’’. 

21 SEC. 3. ALLOWABLE USES. 

22 Section 2008 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

23 (6 U.S.C. 609) is amended— 

24 (1) in subsection (a)— 
3 

•HR 4627 EH

1 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (11) 

2 through (14) as paragraphs (12) through (15), 

3 respectively; and 

4 (B) by inserting after paragraph (10) the 

5 following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(11) addressing security vulnerabilities of pub7 lic spaces, including through the installation of 

8 bollards and other target hardening activities;’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (b)— 

10 (A) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking 

11 ‘‘(a)(10)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)(12)’’; and 

12 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

13 paragraph: 

14 ‘‘(6) FIREARMS.— 

15 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A grant awarded 

16 under section 2003 or 2004 may not be used 

17 for the provision to any person of a firearm or 

18 training in the use of a firearm. 

19 ‘‘(B) NO EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.—Noth20 ing in this paragraph may be construed to pre21 clude or contradict any other provision of law 

22 authorizing the provision of firearms or training 

23 in the use of firearms.’’. 
4 

•HR 4627 EH

1 SEC. 4. REPORT. 

2 The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to 

3 the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 

4 Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security 

5 and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on poten6 tial terrorism vulnerabilities relating to emerging auto7 motive technologies that support driverless vehicles and 

8 the associated threat such vehicles may pose to people in 

9 public spaces. Such report shall also compare any public 

10 benefit of such vehicles against any such vulnerabilities 

11 and threats. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 19, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4627 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to 

for other purposes. rorist threats, including vehicular attacks, and authorize expenditures to combat emerging ter-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0581

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CATHERINE MARIE RYMAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 28, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 21 2022

09/21/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0405
# C_2008285EN.01004801.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/48

---

Appeal brought on 26 August 2008 by Chantal De Fays against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 June 2008 in Case F-97/07 De Fays v Commission

(Case T-355/08 P)

(2008/C 285/87)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Chantal De Fays (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Moyse, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Declare the present appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the present appeal admissible;

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | grant the application for annulment made by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the application for annulment made by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) of 17 June 2008 in Case F-97/07 dismissing her action against the decision of the appointing authority of 21 November 2006 applying Article 60 of the Staff Regulations.

The appellant puts forward two pleas in law in support of her appeal:

In first place, the appellant is of the view that the CST erred in law in its definition of the temporal scope of the decision of 21 November 2006 by which the administration, first, found that the appellant had been regularly absent from 19 October 2006 and, secondly, withheld her remuneration for the whole of the period not covered by annual leave. The appellant submits that the CST considered that the effects of the contested decision extended only from 19 October 2006 until 13 December 2006, that is, up to the point at which the administration received a medical certificate justifying the appellant's absence, whereas, in fact, the effects of that decision continue up to the present. That error of law is the outcome of an erroneous judicial assessment of the facts, the inaccuracy of which, in the appellant's view, is attributable to the documents on the case file.

In second place, the appellant states that the fact that the CST based its decision that the administration was entitled to continue the suspension of the remuneration which was due to the appellant on the existence of an implied decision is an error of law, entailing breach of the second paragraph of Article 25, Article 59(1) and Article 60 of the Staff Regulations, the internal provisions of the Commission on the exercise of the powers conferred on the appointing authority and the rights of defence.

---
# C_2008107EN.01003301.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/33

---

Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

(Case T-73/08)

(2008/C 107/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: B. Henning, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission's decision of 26 November 2007 claiming repayment of the sum of EUR 23 228,07 in connection with the ‘Daphne Grant Agreement JLS/DAP/2004-1/080/YC’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decision of 26 November 2007 claiming repayment of the sum of EUR 23 228,07 in connection with the ‘Daphne Grant Agreement JLS/DAP/2004-1/080/YC’;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In May 2005, the applicant and the Commission signed an agreement on support for a project in connection with the Daphne II programme (1). By debit note of 26 November 2007, the defendant reclaimed from the applicant part of the payment made in connection with this agreement. The applicant brought the present action against that decision.

1

The applicant claims in support of its action, first, that the contested decision is in breach of the obligation to state reasons. Second, the principle of a fair hearing has been infringed, as the applicant was not allowed an appropriate period of time to comment and to submit additional documents. Finally, the applicant complains that the contested decision is based on an erroneous assessment of the facts.

---

(1)  Decision No 803/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 adopting a programme of Community action (2004 to 2008) to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (the Daphne II programme) (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 1).

1

---
# Calhoun - Appalachian Regional Commission

- East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission Executive Director Lori Hodge Sokol Email l&#111;&#x72;&#x69;&#46;&#115;&#111;&#x6b;&#x6f;l&#64;&#101;&#x61;&#x72;p&#100;&#x63;&#x2e;&#x6f;r&#103;The post East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.