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

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12961]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifth Meeting: Special Committee 231 (SC 231)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Fifth Meeting Notice of Special Committee 231.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
fifth meeting of the Special Committee 231.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 9th-11th from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th 
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0663.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or 
Sophie Bousquet, Program Director, RTCA, Inc., sbousquet@rtca.org, 202-
330-0663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the Special Committee 231. The agenda 
will include the following:

Tuesday, June 9, 2015
    1. Welcome/Introduction
    2. Administrative Remarks
    3. Agenda Review
    4. Summary of Working Group activities
    5. Other Business
    6. Date and Place of Next Meeting
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
    1. Continuation of Plenary or Working Group Session Co-Chairmen's 
remarks and introductions
Thursday, June 11, 2015
    1. Continuation of Plenary or Working Group Session

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 21, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-12961 Filed 5-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
# C_2022005EN.01000101.xml

| 5.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10260 – LACTALIS / LEERDAMMER)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 5/01)

On 26 August 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10260. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10260. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21332]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 301 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-622, CP2024-630.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21332 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
*OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 20, 2009*

#### JAMES C. WEIMER VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

(CC-09-0002)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Ronald R. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant seeks to recover $145.39 from respondent for travel expenses. Since claimant submitted the expense report after the cut off date for submission, he was not reimbursed for the expenditures.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim as well as the amount, and states that there were sufficient funds expired in that appropriate fiscal year from which the invoice could have been paid.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award *252to claimant in the amount of $145.39.

Award of $145.39.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S REPORT ON FORM 10Q FILED NOVEMBER 6, 1996, WHICH INCLUDES
THE UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE REGISTRANT, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             732
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,064
<PP&E>                                         101,357
<DEPRECIATION>                                      27
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,690
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              256
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,368
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,083
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   158
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 643
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,550)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,769
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,319)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,319)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              58
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      432
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        503
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,428
<PP&E>                                           3,585
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,832
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,307
<BONDS>                                          1,595
<COMMON>                                           657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              503
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,098)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,996
<SALES>                                          4,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,373
<CGS>                                            3,446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    28
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     71
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 62
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          (15)
<NET-INCOME>                                        47
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .89<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88<F2>
<FN>
<F1> Represents basic earnings per share as defined in FASB Statement No. 128.
<F2> Represents diluted earnings per share as defined in FASB Statement No. 128.
</FN>

</TABLE>
# C_2022350EN.01000201.xml

| 13.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10867 – GIP / AZURE / OMERS / VTG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 350/02)

On 7 September 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10867. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10867. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

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

 

Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officersof RemedyTemp, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), does herebycertify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended April 2, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “10-Q Report”) that to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1)       the 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

 

(2)       the information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| May 12, 2006 | /s/ GREG D. PALMER                                   |   |
|--------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|         | Greg D. Palmer                                       |
|         | President and Chief  Executive Officer               |
|         | RemedyTemp, Inc.                                     |
|         |                                                 |
| May 12, 2006 | /s/ MONTY A. HOUDESHELL                              |   |
|         | Monty A. Houdeshell                                  |
|         | Senior Vice President,  Chief Administrative Officer |
|         | and Corporate Secretary                              |
|         | (Principal Financial  Officer)                       |
|         | RemedyTemp, Inc.                                     |

 

The foregoing certificationis being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18U.S.C Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporatedby reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after thedate hereof, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates itby reference and regardless of any general incorporation language in suchfiling. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

July 7, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60728

Summary Calendar

PHRA KHOU GNOT VONGPHAKDY,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

-------------------------------------------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A71 621 069

-------------------------------------------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Phra Khou Gnot Vongphakdy petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) affirming without opinion the decision of the immigration judge denying his

application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Because the BIA designated the immigration ju dge’s decision as the final agency

determination, review is of the immigration judge’s decision. S ee Mikhael v. INS

, 115 F.3d 299, 302-2-

(5th Cir. 1997). Vongphakdy, a Buddhist, contends that he will be unable to practice his religion as

he would like to because the Communist Part y is in co nt rol in Laos. He asserts that he was

mistreated when he was in Laos due to his position as a chief monk. Vongphakdy has married and

is no longer a monk, but contends that he fears that he would be arrested by the communists if he is

returned to Laos. The immigration judge’s determination that Vongphakdy did not meet his burden

to show that he is likely to be tortured if removed is supported by substantial evidence. S ee 8 C.F.R.

§§ 208.18(a) & 208.16(c)(2); Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft

, 303 F.3d 341, 3 53 (5th Cir. 2002);

Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS , 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).

Vongphakdy also argues that the BIA erred in applying the summary review procedures in

8 C.F .R. § 1003.1(e)(4) to affirm the immigration judge’s denial of relief without opinion. He

contends, based merely on the number of such su mmary affirmances, that this provision is being

applied systematically. He asserts, in conclusory fashion, that his case was not thoroughly reviewed

and that the regulatio ns were misapplied. We previously have held that the BIA’s summary

affirmance procedures do not violate due process. S ee Soadjede v. Ashcroft

, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33

(5th Cir. 2003). Vongphakdy has failed to articulate why his case allegedly does not meet the criteria

for affirmance without opinion, or how his case was not properly reviewed. Accordingly, we find no

error.

The petition for review is DENIED.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2749 

To amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2015 

Mr. VALADAO (for himself, Mr. DENHAM, Mr. COSTA, Mr. NUNES, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. KNIGHT, Mrs. 

MIMI WALTERS of California, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. ISSA, Mr. MCCARTHY, 

Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. COOK, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, and Mr. 

WALDEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dams Accountability, 

5 Maintenance, and Safety Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL PROJECT BENE7 FITS. 

8 The Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 

9 U.S.C. 506 et seq.) is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2749 IH

1 (1) in section 3, by striking ‘‘Construction’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘Except as provided in section 5B, con3 struction’’; and 

4 (2) by inserting after section 5A (43 U.S.C. 

5 509) the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 5B. ADDITIONAL PROJECT BENEFITS. 

7 ‘‘Notwithstanding section 3, if the Secretary deter8 mines that additional project benefits, including additional 

9 conservation storage capacity, are feasible and not incon10 sistent with the purposes of this Act, the Secretary is au11 thorized to develop additional project benefits through the 

12 construction of new or supplementary works on a project 

13 in conjunction with the Secretary’s activities under section 

14 2 and subject to the conditions described in the feasibility 

15 study, provided that— 

16 ‘‘(1) the Secretary determines that developing 

17 additional project benefits through the construction 

18 of new or supplementary works on a project will pro19 mote more efficient management of water and 

20 water-related facilities; 

21 ‘‘(2) the feasibility study pertaining to addi22 tional project benefits has been authorized pursuant 

23 to section 8 of the Federal Water Project Recreation 

24 Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601–18); and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2749 IH

1 ‘‘(3) the costs associated with developing the 

2 additional project benefits are allocated to the au3 thorized purposes of the structure and repaid con4 sistent with all provisions of Federal Reclamation 

5 law (the Act of June 17, 1902, 43 U.S.C. 371 et 

6 seq.) and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of 

7 that Act.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
P etition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April 12 ,

201 2

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 1 2

- 00 203

- C V

____________

IN RE RWLS, L

. L

. C ., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 133rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 68513



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On March 5 , 2012 , relator

, RWLS, L

. L

. C

., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in

this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. R elator asked this
court to compel the r espondent, the Honorable Jaclanel McFarland

, presiding judge of the

1 33rd District Court of Harris Cou nty, Texas, to (1) vacate her order s signed November 28,

2011, compelling compliance with subpoenas issued by the arbitration panel and denying

relator’s request to transfer this discovery dispute; and (2) transfer this discovery dispute to

the 335th Dist rict Court in Burleson County, Texas.2

Relator has not established that it is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we
deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher.
#### TEXAS & N. O. R. CO. v. BROOK.

No. 3441.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

April 28, 1939.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 1939.

Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton, of Houston, Sanders & McLeroy, of Center, and Roy L. Arterbury, of Houston, for appellant.

Davis, Avery & Wallace, of Center, and Jones & Jones, of Marshall, for appellee.

O’QUINN, Justice. '

This is a companion case to Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company v. Louise Brook, By Next Friend, Tex.Civ.App., 127 S.W.2d 599, this day decided. The facts are the same, and the questions identical, except in this case, the excessiveness of the verdict is presented. *On*the authority of the decision and opinion in that case (here referred to and adopted as part of *604this opinion) the judgment of the trial court as to liability of appellant for damages is affirmed.

The jury, on the evidence, found damages for appellee on account of the loss of his minor son, Jack Brook, in the sum of $12,-500. After careful consideration of the evidence, we have concluded that the judgment is excessive in the sum of $5,000.. Therefore, if appellee will within thirty days from this date remit that sum, $5,~ 000, from the judgment, leaving the judgment and sum to be received by appellee $7,500, the judgment is affirmed, otherwise it will be reversed and remanded.

The judgment is affirmed conditionally.