alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1845

- 0084 v 4

– Affected Public

– For

- Profit Institutions 11 / 7 /201 4

The regulations in 686.4 require an institution that ceases to participate or becomes ineligible to participate in the TEACH Grant program during an award year to report to the Department of Education within 45 day s after the effective date of the loss of eligibility

. The report must include the name of each TEACH Grant eligible student, the amount of the TEACH Grant funds paid to each student for that award ye ar, and the amount of TEACH Grant funds due each eligible student through the end of the pay ment p eriod. Also, the institution must provide an accounting of all TEACH Grant expenditures for that award ye ar to the date of termination.

# of # of Total Respondents Responses hours Business or other for

- profits 1 1 9

The re gulations in 686.11 establish that in addition to meeting the student eligibility requirements, in order to receive a TEACH Grant the applicant must submit the designated application, sign a TEACH Grant agreement to serve (this burden is captured under OMB Control Number 1845

- 0083), and enroll in a TEACH Grant eligible institution. I n addition, the grant recipient must either maintain a cumulative grade point average of 3.25 on a 4.0 scale during each pay

ment period or score above the 75 th percentile on at least one of the battery of nationally

- normed standardized test.

# of # of Total Respondents Responses hours Business or other for

- profits 10 2,090 128

The regulations in 686.32 require an institution to provid e initial, subsequent, and exit counseling to each TEACH Grant recipient and maintain documentation substantiating the counseling requirements.

# of # of Total Respondents Responses hours Business or other for

- profits 1 0 10 138

The regulations in 686.34 require the institution to promptly provide written notification to a student requesting repayment of an y overpayment that the institution does not have responsibility to repay . The regulations also require that the institution refer the student to the Department if the student does not take positive action to promptly resolve the TEACH Grant overpay ment.

# of # of Total Respondents Responses hours Business or other for

- profits 10 10 3

TOTAL S Responses 2,111 Respondents 10 Burden Hours 278
Exhibit 13.1

906 Certification

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Annual Report of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Rong Guangdao, the Chairman of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: June 27, 2011



By:

/s/ Rong GuangdaoName: Rong GuangdaoTitle: Chairman
Exhibit 23

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Buckhead America Corporation:

We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statements (Nos.
333-05313 and 333-37691) on Form S-3 and in the  Registration  Statements  (Nos.
33-97046,  333-33097,  333-58375,  333-80865,  and  333-41268)  on  Form  S-8 of
Buckhead America Corporation of our report dated March 29, 2002, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Buckhead America Corporation and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2001 and 2000,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of
income (loss),  shareholders'  equity (deficit) and comprehensive income (loss),
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2001,  which report  appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K
of Buckhead America Corporation.

Our report dated March 29, 2002 contains an  explanatory  paragraph  that states
that the Company has suffered  recurring losses from operations,  operating cash
deficiencies  and  currently  does not have the  ability  to repay or  refinance
certain debt maturing in 2002. These circumstances raise substantial doubt about
the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial
statements do not include any adjustments  that might result from the outcome of
this uncertainty.

                                         /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2002

1458023
# C_2008158EN.01001803.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/18

---

Action brought on 15 April 2008 — E.ON Energie v Commission

(Case T-141/08)

(2008/C 158/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: E.ON Energie AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Röhling, C. Krohs and F. Dietrich, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the defendant's Decision C(2008) 377 Final of 30 January 2008 in Case COMP/B-1/39.326 — E.ON Energie; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant's Decision C(2008) 377 Final of 30 January 2008 in Case COMP/B-1/39.326 — E.ON Energie;

| — | In the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant to an appropriate amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant to an appropriate amount;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2008) 377 Final of 30 January 2008 in Case COMP/B-1/39.326 — E.ON Energie AG. In that decision the Commission imposed a fine on the applicant as it broke a seal affixed by representatives of the Commission under Article 20(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and, at least negligently, infringed Article 23(1)(e) of that regulation.

1

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law in support of its action. In the first six pleas the applicant attempts to state that there is insufficient evidence of an infringement of the law. It is submitted in particular that there was failure to have regard to the full burden of proof which lies with the defendant, infringement of the inquisitorial principle, an erroneous assumption that the seal was affixed properly, a false assumption that there was something amiss with the condition of the seal on the following day, a false assumption as to the suitability of the security foil, and that there was failure on the defendant's part to consider alternative scenarios.

With the seventh plea it is submitted that the presumption of innocence was disregarded and thus essential rules as to procedure and form were infringed.

Eighth, the applicant submits that the defendant erred in making the accusation of fault for the purpose of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003.

Lastly, it is submitted that there were infringements of the law when the fine was calculated. According to the applicant there was infringement of the principle prohibiting arbitrary measures and of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC. There was failure to have regard to mitigating circumstances and an erroneous acceptance of aggravating circumstances.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

1

---
# +)) SNC•LAVALIN 

## Thermal Power
November 30, 2015 U .S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington DC 20590 Reference: Docket No. FAA-2015-4196 Dear S ir or Madam : SNC - LAVALIN CONSTRUCTORS INC. 1 9015 North C ree k Parkway, Su ite 300 Bothell, WA 98011 - 8029 U SA Mailing Address: P .O. Box 30 37 Bothe ll , WA 98041-30 37 U SA Telephone: (425) 420 - 7839 Facs imile : (425) 489 - 8040

As requested the following paragraph provides the necessary information missing from my referenced petition. The proposed aircraft is a DJI Inspire 1 model T600 . The DJI Inspire 1 is a vertical lift takeoff and landing unmanned aircraft systems with a ground contro l station utilizing an e lectronic tab let or smartphone. The DJI Inspire 1 is equipped with four main rotors , driven by Lithium Polymer Battery powered electroni c motors. Th e DJI Inspire 1 has a maximum gross weight of approx im ate ly 6.47 pounds (including battery) . It has a length up to 17.3 inches, width of 17 .7 inch es, he ight of 11 . 8 inches and maximum speed of approximately 42 knots . S ince rely ,

# ~~ S h awn S mith Resident Engineer 

# ss
cc:

S LC I - FAA/ 333-2 Page 1 of 1
# C_2009044EN.01007501.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/75

---

Action brought on 4 November 2008 — Bertolete and Others v Commission

(Case F-92/08)

(2009/C 44/133)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marli Bertolete (Woluwé-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) and Others (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision establishing the new calculation of the applicants' salaries in enforcement of the judgments delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 5 July 2007 in Cases F-24/06, F-25/06 and F-26/06.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision adopted by the authority responsible for concluding contracts of employment on 18 July 2008 rejecting the complaints presented by the applicants challenging a decision adopted on 23 January 2008 establishing a new calculation of the applicants' salaries in enforcement of three judgments given by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal on their application on 5 July 2007 and challenging also the corrective multiples which were later applied to them, as well as the pay slips sent to the applicants pursuant to the decision of 23 January 2008 for the months of February, March and April 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted by the authority responsible for concluding contracts of employment on 18 July 2008 rejecting the complaints presented by the applicants challenging a decision adopted on 23 January 2008 establishing a new calculation of the applicants' salaries in enforcement of three judgments given by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal on their application on 5 July 2007 and challenging also the corrective multiples which were later applied to them, as well as the pay slips sent to the applicants pursuant to the decision of 23 January 2008 for the months of February, March and April 2008;

| — | Inasmuch as it is necessary, annul also the decision against which the applicants brought their complaints; |
| --- | --- |

—

Inasmuch as it is necessary, annul also the decision against which the applicants brought their complaints;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now 
adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 47 minutes 
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, 
Wednesday, August 1, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

                          ____________________
```
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Isaac Govan, Appellant, v Bernard T. Waldron, as Sheriff of Schenectady County, Respondent.

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), entered November 30,1989, which, after a hearing dismissed the writ.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner brought the instant habeas corpus proceeding to challenge the validity of a judgment of conviction rendered by the County Court of Schenectady County. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County properly dismissed the writ on the ground that the respondent Sheriff of Schenectady County no longer had custody of the petitioner. In any event, since the petitioner’s contentions could be reviewed on a direct appeal from his judgment of conviction, they are not subject to review by habeas corpus *(see, People ex rel. Morgan v Berry,*149 AD2d 752; *People ex rel. McNair v Bantum,*123 AD2d 800). Nor do the facts of this case indicate a violation of the *821petitioner’s fundamental constitutional rights such as to warrant a departure from "traditional orderly proceedings” *(People ex rel. Keitt v McMann,*18 NY2d 257, 262). Accordingly, the writ was properly dismissed without a hearing. Kunzeman, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5688-H5689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     END THE POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP

  (Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect Congress to 
work to get our economy back on track, to promote economic growth, and 
to provide families and small businesses with some certainty when it 
comes to their taxes.
  The Senate passed legislation to ensure that middle class families do 
not see a tax increase at the end of the year. Yesterday, House 
Democrats offered the identical bill, one that the President would 
sign, yet our Republican friends passed a plan that will raise taxes on 
25 million middle class families by preserving tax breaks for the 
wealthiest among us.
  We need to end this kind of political gamesmanship that has held our 
economy back. Against this backdrop, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle

[[Page H5689]]

have decided to leave town for almost 40 days with a long list of 
unfinished business: postal reform, the Violence Against Women 
reauthorization, the farm bill, comprehensive jobs legislation, the 
Make It in America agenda, a balanced and big plan to solve our 
deficit, and tax cuts for the middle class.
  We should remain here and do the work the American people sent us to 
do.

                          ____________________
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *167David Banham, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.), rendered May 3, 1989, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that his right to a speedy trial was violated. We are satisfied that the documentary proof offered in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 and 30.20 demonstrated that between August 17, 1987 and August 29, 1988 the defendant’s location was unknown and that he was attempting to avoid prosecution. Accordingly, since the defendant was absent within the meaning of the statute, the People were not required to show "due diligence” in locating the defendant after he failed to appear for a scheduled court date *(see,*CPL 30.30 [4] [c]; *People v Jackson,*142 AD2d 597; *People v Walker,*133 AD2d 2; CPL 210.45 [5] [c]; *People v Gruden,*42 NY2d 214).

We also find no merit to the defendant’s contentions that his sentence was excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

Finally, the defendant’s challenge to the imposition of a mandatory surcharge is premature while he is still incarcerated *(see, People v West,*124 Misc 2d 622). Lawrence, J. P., Fiber, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
21. IDENTIFICATION (See instructions) IDENTIFICATION

Sample ID Animal ID Breed Age Sex Sample ID Animal ID Breed Age Sex

VS FORM 10-4A

AUG 2009

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control numbers for this information collection are 0579-0040, 0090, 0101, 0146, and 0189. The 

time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average .333 hours per response including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

OMB APPROVED

0579-0040, 0090, 

0101, 0146, and 0189

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

VETERINARY SERVICES

CONTINUATION SHEET FOR SPECIMEN SUBMISSION

PAGE:

OF 

INSTRUCTIONS: Use this form only as a continuation of information on VS Form 10-4. See instructions for completing VS Form 10-4.

3. NAME OF OWNER/BROKER Check if wildlife (No owner) 15. REFERRAL NUMBER

OWNER CITY OWNER STATE/COUNTRY
INSTRUCTIONS FOR VS FORM 10-4A

PAGE 

Enter the number for this page out of the total number of pages submitted (e.g., 2 of 3). 

NAME OF OWNER/BROKER

Enter the complete name of the animal owner from VS Form 10-4, block 3.

REFERRAL NUMBER

Enter the referral number from VS Form 10-4, block 15.

IDENTIFICATION

Continue the specimen numbering sequence started on VS 10-4, block 21. Enter the National Animal ID, breed, age, and sex of each animal sampled. If more than 48 

specimens are submitted, use additional VS Form 10-4A as required. Please limit to <250 specimens per VS Form 10-4.
# C_2008313EN.01004602.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/46

---

Action brought on 1 October 2008 — Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi v OHIM — Denim (VIGOSS)

(Case T-431/08)

(2008/C 313/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: A V Denim, Inc. (trading as A&V Denim, Inc.) (New York, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 July 2008 in case R 1366/2007-2, insofar as it dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 June 2007 ruling on opposition No B 923 005; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 July 2008 in case R 1366/2007-2, insofar as it dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 June 2007 ruling on opposition No B 923 005; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VIGOSS’ for goods in classes 14, 18 and 25

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: International trade mark registration No 771 374 of the figurative mark ‘VIGOSS’ for goods in class 25

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the application

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision and dismissed the appeal for the reminder

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account all relevant factors when assessing the likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.

Pleas in law:

---
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4606 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To provide that applications under the Natural Gas Act 

for the importation or exportation of small volumes of 

natural gas shall be granted without modification or 

delay. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4606 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Small Scale 

3 LNG Certainty and Access Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SMALL SCALE EXPORTATION OR IMPORTATION OF 

5 NATURAL GAS. 

6 Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 

7 717b(c)) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘For purposes’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘(1) For purposes’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(2) For purposes of subsection (a), and in addition 

12 to any importation or exportation of natural gas described 

13 in paragraph (1), importation or exportation of natural 

14 gas shall be deemed to be consistent with the public inter15 est, and an application for such importation or exportation 

16 shall be granted without modification or delay, if— 

17 ‘‘(A) the application for such importation or ex18 portation proposes to import or export a volume of 

19 natural gas that does not exceed 0.14 billion cubic 

20 feet per day; and 

21 ‘‘(B) the Commission’s approval of such appli22 cation does not require an environmental impact 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4606 RFS

1 statement or an environmental assessment under the 

2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 6, 

2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS