alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6105]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 REPORT ON THE CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO 
 PERSONS WHO COMMIT, THREATEN TO COMMIT, OR SUPPORT TERRORISM THAT WAS 
   ESTABLISHED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER 13224 ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2001--PM 61

  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying 
report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs:

To the Congress of the United States:
  Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) 
provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, 
within the 90-day period prior to the anniversary date of its 
declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and 
transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to 
continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this 
provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the 
enclosed notice, stating that the national emergency with respect to 
persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism is to 
continue in effect beyond September 23, 2012.
  The crisis constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of 
terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist 
attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against 
the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further 
attacks on United States nationals or the United States that led to the 
declaration of a national emergency on September 23, 2001, has not been 
resolved. These actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary 
threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the 
United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is 
necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to 
persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, and 
maintain in force the comprehensive sanctions to respond to this 
threat.
                                                        Barack Obama.  
The White House, September 11, 2012.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008107EN.01003901.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/39

---

Appeal brought on 26 February 2008 by Kris Van Neyghem against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06, Van Neyghem v Commission

(Case T-105/08 P)

(2008/C 107/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Kris Van Neyghem (Vissenken, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

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;

| — | annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06;

| — | uphold the claims for annulment and for compensation submitted by the appellant to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the claims for annulment and for compensation submitted by the appellant to the Civil Service Tribunal;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal, the appellant is seeking the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) dismissing his application, on the one hand, for the annulment of the decision of the selection board in general competition EPSO/A/19/04 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in that competition and, on the other, for damages for the material and non-material damage which he allegedly suffered.

In support of his appeal, the appellant pleads a misunderstanding of evidence produced before the Tribunal, namely, a copy of the written test.

The applicant pleads, in addition, an error in the Tribunal's reasoning concerning the absence of a manifest error of assessment on the part of the president of the selection board in the comparison between the mark given to the applicant and the literal assessment in the evaluation sheet.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID M. KING,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 182 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# C_2008301EN.01004501.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/45

---

Action brought on 5 September 2008 — Csepeli Áramtermelő v Commission

(Case T-370/08)

(2008/C 301/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Csepeli Áramtermelő kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Máttyus, K. Ferenczi, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, T. Franchoo, and D. Fessenko, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision in so far as it identifies Csepel as a beneficiary of State aid that is considered to be incompatible with the common market, and in so far as the decision orders Hungary to recover this alleged State aid, including interest, from Csepel; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision in so far as it identifies Csepel as a beneficiary of State aid that is considered to be incompatible with the common market, and in so far as the decision orders Hungary to recover this alleged State aid, including interest, from Csepel; and

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

—

To order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant requests the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2223 final, of 4 June 2008 (Case C-41/2005 — Hungarian stranded costs), in so far as it identifies the applicant as a beneficiary of State aid that is considered to be incompatible with the common market, and in so far as the decision orders Hungary to recover the alleged State aid, including interest, from the applicant.

The applicant claims that the Commission failed to evidence and appropriately justify its conclusion that the power purchase agreement (‘PPA’) concluded between the applicant — owner of a power generation facility in Hungary ultimately acquired by Atel AG — and the Hungarian state-owned electricity wholesaler, Magyar Villamos Muvek Rt. (‘MVM’), constitutes incompatible State aid. In support of its claims, the applicant raises the following pleas in law:

In its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 253 EC and Article 87(1) EC by failing to state reasons and by making a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant's PPA conferred an economic advantage to the applicant.

In its second plea, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the applicant's PPA distorts competition.

In its third plea, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, in that the recovery obligation is unjustified in the specific circumstances of the case on the basis of general principles of Community law. In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment regarding the methodology that it applied in order to calculate the amounts to be recovered.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-30344 and 333-51430) and on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-73904, 333-55978, 333-53446, 333-32096, 333-32092 and 333-65923) of Hanover
Compressor Company of our report dated April 16, 2002 relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which
appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
April 16, 2002
#### STATE of Wyoming ex rel. the STATE BOARD OF CHARITIES & REFORM, Appellant, (Plaintiff below), v. Vernon E. BOWER, Administrator of the Estate of Daisy Wilkinson, Deceased, Appellee, (Defendant below).

No. 2984.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 18, 1961.

Norman B. Gray, Atty. Gen., for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

■ Before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER, HARNSBERGER, and McINTYRE, JJ.

Mr. Justice HARNSBERGER

delivered the opinion of the court.

By its petition for rehearing and the brief ■in support, the State attempts to reargue •matters already considered on the appeal ’.by continuing to insist upon the legitimacy of the State’s claim for payment of services ■rendered the deceased. This does not meet .the real issue which was merely whether the State was to be excused from following the procedures required for the assertion and allowance of its claim. This was sufficiently discussed in the original opinion and will not be reconsidered.

The further complaint that the State will suffer loss through the negligence and carelessness of its employees affords no lawful nor even logical reason for giving the State exemption from necessary procedural requirements in order to secure payment of its claim. The State always suffers loss from the malfeasance or nonfeasance of its officers and employees. The remedy is not to hamper the administration of justice and the probate proceedings of estates of deceased persons by absolving the State from observance of the State’s procedural laws, but lies in seeking redress from those responsible for their carelessness and neglect.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
  I am pleased to report that the Foreign Relations Committee approved 
this Treaty on July 26, the 22nd anniversary of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. I am also pleased that, like the ADA, the 
Disabilities Convention has strong bipartisan backing.
  This treaty is personal to so many of us. I am deeply grateful to our 
committee members for their thoughtful input on the treaty and the 
resolution of advice consent, and to Senator McCain and former Majority 
Leader Dole, who are as deeply committed to this cause as Senator 
Kennedy was to the original Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Passing this treaty isn't just the right thing to do. It is also the 
smart thing to do. It will extend essential protections to millions of 
disabled Americans, including our disabled service men and women and 
veterans, when they travel, study, work, and live abroad. In addition 
to enshrining the principles of the ADA on the international level, the 
convention will provide us with a critical tool as we advocate for the 
adoption of its standards globally standards to which all of us should 
aspire. By joining, we put ourselves in a stronger position to advance 
the goals of equality of opportunity, independent living, economic 
self-sufficiency, and full participation for individuals with 
disabilities.
  The Disabilities Convention is a reflection of our values as a 
nation. It is who we are from the Civil Rights Act to the Voting Rights 
Act to the ADA. We saw how America responded to horrifying civil rights 
images--our country met collectively to right a wrong at home and break 
the back of Jim Crow. Now is the time to step up and meet collectively 
to help make it right for the millions of Americans with disabilities 
when they are overseas and for the hundreds of millions of disabled 
individuals throughout the world.
  This is one of those moments the Senate was intended to live up to--
and it calls on all of us to provide leadership and find the common 
ground. The winners of this treaty will not be defined by party or 
ideology. The winners will be the American people.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to ensure that the Senate approves the Disabilities Convention 
during the 112th Congress.

                          ____________________
```
# Spartanburg - Appalachian Regional Commission

- South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments Executive Director Steve Pelissier Email &#160;&#x69;&#110;f&#x6f;&#x40;&#115;c&#x61;&#99;o&#x67;&#x2e;&#111;r&#x67;The post South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Tari Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the  period  ended June 30,  2005 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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 results of operations
         of the Company.



Date:  August 15, 2005


                                                /s/  Theodore Tsagkaris

                                                ------------------------------
                                                Theodore Tsagkaris
                                                Secretary, Treasurer & C.F.O.
                                                (Principal Financial Officer and
                                                 Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 10.37


                   ASSIGNMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST



     This Assignment of Limited Partnership Interest is made and entered into
this 13th day of February, 2004, but is effective for all purposes as of the
January 1, 2004 by and between Hexagon Partners, Ltd. ("Assignor") and AMEN
Properties, Inc., Dale A. Brown, Cary D. Brown and McGraw Brothers Investments,
(collectively referred to as "Assignee"). For total consideration of $625,000,
subject to the back-in interest to Anthem Oil and Gas, Inc, and including,
without limitation, the execution and delivery of a Promissory Note from AMEN
Properties, Inc. and payable to the order of Assignor, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and confessed, Assignor hereby
transfers, assigns, conveys and delivers an 8.828669% interest as a limited
partner in and to Amen Properties, Inc. (6.485533%), Dale A. Brown (0.411959%),
Cary D. Brown (0.411959%) and McGraw Brothers Investments (0.823918%) and a net
profits "back-in" interest of (0.69529981%) to Anthem Oil and Gas, Inc., as set
forth in attachment "A".

     Signed this  __________ day of February, 2004, but effective as aforesaid.


                                             HEXAGON PARTNERS, LTD by
                                             Texas Star Management Company, LLC
                                             General Partner


                                             ___________________________
                                             By: Tim Dunn, its Manager

                                                                        ASSIGNOR
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700071

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

DARRELL K. JACKSON

Private (E-1), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Colonel Peter S. Rubin, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Headquarters Group, II 

Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejuene, NC.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Kevin S. 

Woodard, USMC.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Derek C. Hampton, JAGC, 

USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 23 May 2017

_________________________

Before CAMPBELL, HUTCHISON, and RUSSELL, Appellate Military 

Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2



                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 Medical Connections
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:


          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 results of
               operation of the Company.


          3.   A signed original of this written statement required by Section
               906 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.



Date:  November  13, 2006

                                               By: /s/ DANIEL L. CAMMARANO, III
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Daniel   L. Cammarano, III
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
**Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 – Cementir Italia v Commission**

**(Case T-63/08)**

State aid – Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest – Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Concept of advantage – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Aid measure put into effect

1.                     *State aid – Concept – Compensation awarded for expropriation of assets – Not included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 57, 60, 63,
72, 74, 99, 101)*

2.                     *State aid – Examination by the Commission – Administrative procedure – Obligation on the Commission to put the parties concerned
on notice to submit their observations – Right of the aid beneficiary to be sufficiently associated with the proceedings –
Limits (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 161-163, 166-168)*

3.                     *EU Law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Whether applicable to administrative procedures initiated by the Commission
– Examination of plans to grant aid – Scope (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 189)*

4.                     *State aid – Planned aid – Notification to the Commission – Scope of the obligation – Need to notify the aid measures at the
draft stage (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 2 and 3) (see paras 228-230, 234-236)*

5.                     *State aid – Commission decision finding aid unlawful and ordering its recovery – Aid not yet paid (Art. 88(3) EC; Council
Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 239, 241, 250-251)*

6.                     *State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 88 EC – Possible legitimate
expectation on the part of the beneficiaries – Protection – Conditions and limits (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999,
Art. 14(1)) (see paras 269-271, 275-276)*

7.                     *State aid – Commission decision not to raise objections to a national measure – Legitimate expectation of the beneficiary
that an extension of the said measure is lawful – None (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras
283-284, 288)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Application for annulment of Decision 2008/408/EC of the Commission of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Cementir Italia Srl to pay the costs. |
# C_2008209EN.01006001.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/60

---

Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Comtec Translations v Commission

(Case T-239/08)

(2008/C 209/107)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Comtec Translations Ltd (Leamington Spa, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. R. Scott and E. Bentley, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision letter and remit the applicant's bid for reconsideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision letter and remit the applicant's bid for reconsideration;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's Decision of 16 April 2008 rejecting its tender submitted in the framework of the tender procedure for the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of documents relating to the policies and administration of the European Union from all EU official languages into English (call for tender No FL-GEN07-EN) (1). The reason given for not retaining the applicant's tender was insufficient technical or professional capacity and lack of, or insufficient proven professional experience.

1

In support of its action the applicant puts forward a single plea in law. It claims that the administrative procedure has been conducted irregularly and that its procedural rights have not been observed. The applicant submits that it has successfully provided translation into English within the Commission for several years in the framework of contracts previously signed and regularly renewed for which it has received satisfactory rankings regarding the quality of the services. The applicant claims that the evaluation committee's decision took no or no proper account of the successful performance of the applicant in submitting translation assignments to the Commission for 12 years neither it took into consideration the documents evidencing the technical and professional qualifications of the applicant's staff, quality managers and sub-contractors.

---

(1)  Contract notice published : OJ 2007/S 180 — 219517.

1

---