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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings 
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
  Votes will be taken in the following order:
  H.R. 6122, by the yeas and nays;
  H.R. 2139, by the yeas and nays;
  H.R. 6186, by the yeas and nays.
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. 
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2009019EN.01001701.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/17

---

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

(Case C-492/08)

(2009/C 19/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that by applying a reduced rate of value added tax (VAT) to services provided by lawyers, lawyers at the Council of State and at the Court of Cassation and avoués, for which they are paid in part or in whole by the State through legal aid, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98(2) of the VAT directive (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by applying a reduced rate of value added tax (VAT) to services provided by lawyers, lawyers at the Council of State and at the Court of Cassation and avoués, for which they are paid in part or in whole by the State through legal aid, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98(2) of the VAT directive (1);

avoués

1

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

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission disputes the application, by the defendant, of a reduced rate of VAT for services provided in the context of legal aid by lawyers, lawyers at the Council of State and at the Court of Cassation as well as avoués, as such services are not included in any of the categories listed in Annex III of Directive 2006/112/EC.

avoués

In order to respond to the defendant's three main arguments, the Commission submits first that the guarantee of access to justice cannot be an appropriate reason for derogating from the normal rate of VAT on the services of lawyers to the extent that that guarantee is connected more to the range of aid granted by the State than to the rate of VAT, which is determined in a uniform manner at Community level.

Secondly, according to the applicant, the social nature of the activities at issue is not sufficient for them to be included in the other categories of services listed in Annex III of the directive, for which a reduction in the rate of VAT is allowed as compared to the normal applicable rate. According to the Court's settled case-law, a narrow interpretation of the nature of those services would be necessary so as to maintain the restrictive nature of that annex.

Finally, the Commission states that the aim both of Articles 96 and 98(2) of the VAT directive and of Annex III thereof is not to avoid distortions of competition between economic operators providing the same goods or services, but more simply to encourage a progressive harmonisation of the legislation of the Member States, by harmonising the rates of VAT applied and limiting the transactions which can be subject to reduced rates.

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Numbers 33-72656 and 33-74616) of Aetrium Incorporated
of our report dated January 30, 1998 appearing on page 17 of the Annual Report
to Shareholders which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We
also consent to incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial
Statement Schedule, which appears on page 19 of this Form 10-K.



/S/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 26, 1998
# C_2008051EN.01005802.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/58

---

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Imperial Chemical Industries v OHIM (FACTORY FINISH)

(Case T-487/07)

(2008/C 51/106)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated 24 October 2007 in Case R 668/2007-4 shall be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated 24 October 2007 in Case R 668/2007-4 shall be annulled.

| — | The Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FACTORY FINISH’ for goods in class 2 — application No 4 538 518

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as ‘FACTORY FINISH’ is not descriptive, but an unusual juxtaposition of words resulting in a lexical invention, and violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the mark applied for is not devoid of distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas:
       H.R. 6383.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to 
     Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United 
     States Constitution.
```
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 – Commission v Finland**

**(Case C-328/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/35/EC – Environmental liability – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 9-10)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Garth Braun, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Ted Kozub, Chief Financial Officer, of Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd., hereby certifies, 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-KSB of Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd. for the period ended December 31, 2005 (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:  April 18, 2006

/s/ Garth Braun

Garth Braun, President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ Ted Kozub

Ted Kozub

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)

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.
8

Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2010-0683 Directorate Identifier: 2010–NE–25-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours 

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet

Replace 16.0 $1,360.0

0 $1,796 $3,156.00 111 $350,316.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $350,316

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
9

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
**Exhibit 10.5****IRREVOCABLE OPTION AGREEMENT**     This Irrevocable Option Agreement (“**Option**”) is entered into as of August ___, 2006, byand among Casa Noble, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“**CNL**”), on the one hand,and National Quality Care, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“**NQCI**”) and each of themajority stockholders of NQCI signatory hereto (“**Majority Stockholders**”), on the otherhand, (“**NQCI Parties**”).     1. The parties have extensively negotiated, and the NQCI Parties have executed and deliveredto CNL concurrently herewith, in the form attached hereto as Exhibits A through F andincorporated herein by reference, the following:(A) License Agreement
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  Eternal God, the source of our being, on this 11th anniversary of 
September 11, we pause to remember how You sustained us even through 
life's tragedies. Recalling the deaths and the injuries, the heroism, 
and the patriotism, it is easy for us to be thankful for Your presence 
and power. Continue to guide this land we love on the labyrinthine path 
to greatness, protecting it from dangers seen and unseen, as You heal 
its doubts and divisions. Use our Senators for Your glory as our Nation 
seeks to truly be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
  We pray in Your sacred Name. Amen.

                          ____________________
```
Map Created: March 2011

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2008

Per Capita Market Income Rates in Appalachia, 2008

(County Rates)

Per capita market income is a measure of an area's total 

personal income, less transfer payments, divided by the resident 

population of the area. The map uses natural breaks in the 

distribution to organize the data into groups of common values. 

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

$9,177 - $16,759

$16,760 - $21,604

$21,605 - $27,667

$27,668 - $40,522

Per Capita Market Income

U.S. average = $34,004

Appalachian average = $25,391

(Natural Breaks Classification)
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4609 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 17, 2018 

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

Resources 

AN ACT 

To provide for the conveyance of a Forest Service site in 

Dolores County, Colorado, to be used for a fire station. 

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


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4609 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘West Fork Fire Sta3 tion Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 In this Act: 

6 (1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘County’’ means Dolo7 res County, Colorado. 

8 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

9 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

10 (3) WEST FORK FIRE STATION CONVEYANCE

11 PARCEL.—The term ‘‘West Fork Fire Station Con12 veyance Parcel’’ means the parcel of approximately 

13 3.61 acres of National Forest System land in the 

14 County, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Map for 

15 West Fork Fire Station Conveyance Parcel’’ and 

16 dated November 21, 2017. 

17 SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF WEST FORK FIRE STATION CON18 VEYANCE PARCEL, DOLORES COUNTY, COLO19 RADO. 

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—On receipt of a request from the 

21 County and subject to such terms and conditions as are 

22 mutually satisfactory to the Secretary and the County, in23 cluding such additional terms as the Secretary determines 

24 to be necessary, the Secretary shall convey to the County 

25 without consideration all right, title, and interest of the 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4609 RFS

1 United States in and to the West Fork Fire Station Con2 veyance Parcel. 

3 (b) COSTS.—Any costs relating to the conveyance 

4 under subsection (a), including processing and transaction 

5 costs, shall be paid by the County. 

6 (c) USE OF LAND.—The land conveyed to the County 

7 under subsection (a) shall be used by the County only for 

8 a fire station, related infrastructure, and roads to facili9 tate access to and through the West Fork Fire Station 

10 Conveyance Parcel. 

11 (d) REVERSION.—If any portion of the land conveyed 

12 under subsection (a) is used in a manner that is incon13 sistent with the use described in subsection (c), the land 

14 shall, at the discretion of the Secretary, revert to the 

15 United States. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 16, 2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.2**

I, Bruce Wright, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Ultratech, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 24, 2014
# C_2009141EN.01004203.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/42

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2009 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-360/08) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the contested measure - No need to give a decision)

2009/C 141/89

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Steiblyté and S. Pardo Quintillián, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3247 of 25 June 2008, reducing the financial assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund for project group No. 2001.ES.16.C.P.E.036 (‘Cleaning of the Hydrographic Basic of North-Galicia-2001’) by Decision C(2001) 4084 of 20 December 2001.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to give a decision in the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to give a decision in the present action.

| 2. | The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

1

---
**Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 – DHL Aviation and DHL Hub Leipzig v Commission**

**(Case T-452/08)**

State aid – Air freight – Warranties relating to the operation of DHL’s new European hub at Leipzig-Halle Airport – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision of the Commission
adressed to a Member State and finding State aid incompatible with the common market – Action by the beneficiary of the aid
– Admissibility (see para. 26)*

2.                     *State aid – Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its repayment – Obligations of
the Member States – Obligation of recovery – Scope – Restoration of the prior situation (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 32)*

3.                     *State aid – Concept – Advantage granted to the beneficiaries of State aid – State guarantees – Nullity by reason of national
law of the contractual clauses granting the State guarantee – Not relevant to the classification as aid (Art. 87(1) EC) (see
paras 38, 40)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/948/EC of 23 July 2008 on measures by Germany to assist DHL and Leipzig-Halle Airport (OJ 2008 L 346, p. 1). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders DHL Aviation SA/NV and DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH to pay the costs. |