alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022168EN.01000201.xml

| 22.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10584 – LUFTHANSA / VW / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 168/02)

On 6 April 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 32022M10584. 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 32022M10584. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2858 

To phase out cosmetic animal testing and the sale of cosmetics tested on 

animals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2015 

Ms. MCSALLY (for herself, Mr. BEYER, Mr. HECK of Nevada, and Mr. 

CA ́RDENAS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To phase out cosmetic animal testing and the sale of 

cosmetics tested on animals, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be referred to as the ‘‘Humane Cos5 metics Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 For purposes of this Act: 

8 (1) COSMETIC.—The term ‘‘cosmetic’’ has the 

9 meaning given such term in section 201 of the Fed10 eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321). 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2858 IH

1 (2) COSMETIC ANIMAL TESTING.—The term 

2 ‘‘cosmetic animal testing’’ means the internal or ex3 ternal application or exposure of any cosmetic to the 

4 skin, eyes, or other body part of a live non-human 

5 vertebrate for purposes of evaluating the safety or 

6 efficacy of a cosmetic. 

7 SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS. 

8 (a) TESTING.—It shall be unlawful for any entity, 

9 whether private or governmental, to conduct or contract 

10 for cosmetic animal testing that— 

11 (1) occurs in the United States; and 

12 (2) is in or affecting interstate commerce. 

13 (b) SALE OR TRANSPORT.—It shall be unlawful to 

14 sell, offer for sale, or transport in interstate commerce any 

15 cosmetic if the final product or any component thereof was 

16 developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing 

17 conducted or contracted for after the effective date speci18 fied in section 6(a). 

19 SEC. 4. CIVIL PENALTIES. 

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to any other penalties 

21 applicable under law, whoever violates any provision of 

22 this Act shall be assessed a civil penalty of not more than 

23 $10,000 for each such violation. 

24 (b) MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS.—Each violation of this 

25 Act with respect to a separate animal, and each day that 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2858 IH

1 a violation of this Act continues, constitutes a separate 

2 offense. 

3 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATES. 

4 (a) PROHIBITION ON COSMETIC ANIMAL TESTING.— 

5 The prohibition specified in section 4(a) takes effect on 

6 the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this 

7 Act. 

8 (b) PROHIBITION ON SALE.—The prohibition speci9 fied in section 4(b) takes effect on the date that is 3 years 

10 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.71 




Director Retainer and
Meeting Fees for Outside Directors 



Retainer fees effective after 2005
Annual Meeting of Shareholders
 Meeting fees effective October 1, 2004 



		
	Retainer Fees:	 		 
	Director	 	$20,000	 
	Chairman	 	$70,000	 
	Vice Chairman	 	$45,000	 
	 
	Board Meetings:	 
	Director	 	$  1,350	 
	Chairman	 	$  1,900	 
	Vice Chairman	 	$  1,700	 
	 
	Committee Meetings:	 
	Director	 	$  1,350	 
	Audit Chairman	 	$  1,900	 
	Other Committee Chairmen	 	$  1,700	 
	 
	Fees for Single-Topic Telephonic	 
	Conference Call Meetings:	 
	Reg O or other matters	 	$     250
|   | Exhibit 21.1 |
|--------|--------------|

 

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

 

| Entity                                       | Jurisdiction of Organization | Name Under Which Subsidiary Does Business                                                 |
|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Alaska United Fiber System Partnership       | Alaska                       | Alaska United Fiber System Partnership, Alaska United Fiber System, Alaska United

  |
| Alaska DigiTel, LLC                          | Alaska                       | Alaska DigiTel, DigiTel                                                                   |
| GCI Communication Corp.                      | Alaska                       | GCI, GCC, GCICC, GCI Communication Corp.

                                           |
| GCI Cable, Inc.                              | Alaska                       | GCI Cable, GCI Cable, Inc.

                                                         |
| GCI Holdings, Inc.                           | Alaska                       | GCI Holdings, Inc.

                                                                 |
| Potter View Development Co., Inc.            | Alaska                       | Potter View Development Co., Inc.

                                                  |
| GCI Fiber Communication, Co., Inc.

* * | Alaska                       | GCI Fiber Communication, Co., Inc., GFCC,  Kanas

                                   |
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NED/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VARDUI HAVATYAN, a.k.a. Mari

Tashchyan,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-71843

Agency No. A078-015-458

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Vardui Havatyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s

decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

FILED

NOV 30 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NED/Research 2 07-71843

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) ,and we grant in part and deny in part the

petition for review.

The agency’s determination that Havatyan was not harmed on account of a

protected ground is not supported by substantial evidence because Havatyan’s

whistle-blowing actions were aimed at government corruption and the police

retaliation was motivated at least in part by her exposure of the bribery scheme. 

See Fedunyak v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 1126, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2007) (whistleblowing is political when directed towards governing institution). In addition, the

agency failed to apply the proper presumption when assessing internal relocation. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(ii) (if “the persecutor is a government . . . it shall be

presumed that internal relocation would not be reasonable”).

Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief because Havatyan

failed to show it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if she returns to

Armenia. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review with respect to Havatyan’s

asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand for the agency to

determine whether she has established past persecution, and to assess future fear
NED/Research 3 07-71843

with the proper presumption. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per

curiam). 

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;

REMANDED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CORNELL PRINCE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 312 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of November, 2016

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
#### WARE v. SLOAN.

No. 13435.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

April 17, 1936.

B. W. Ashworth and W. H. Hall, both of Dallas, for appellant.

Allen & Allen, E. G. Moseley, and Andrew Patton, all of Dailas, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

Appellee presents us with a motion to strike appellant’s brief, and presents three grounds, viz.: (1) That appellant’s brief was not filed in the trial court in compliance with article 2283 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas and the court rules governing the filing of briefs; (2) because the brief is not indexed and contains no alphabetical list of authorities in compliance with rule 35; (3) the third ground asserts that the purported assignments of error are not in compliance with rules 24 and 25, in that-nowhere therein is there a distinct specification of error, in that no sufficient reference is made to the record and no excerpts therefrom are set forth therein.

Answering the first ground of the motion, it may be sufficient to say that neither the Courts of Civil Appeals nor the Supréme Court ever considered the rule requiring briefs to be filed in the trial court as mandatory, and, where no effort has been made to comply with either the statute or the rule, all appellate courts háve uniformly held on motion that briefs may be filed provided a reasonable time lapses after the filing of such briefs within which the appellee may prepare and file his briefs before submission; and briefs have been stricken or disregarded only when tendered to opposing counsel and the court at such a late date as that the appellee would be inconvenienced in replying thereto. But we believe that the amendment to articles 1847 and 1848 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1925, made by the Forty-Fourth Legislature at its last Regular Session, being chapter 90 of the General Laws of such Legislature (section 1 [Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. arts. 1847, 1848]), clearly implies that an appellant who files his brief in the Court of Civil Appeals 30 days from the date of the notice of the submission of his cause has fully complied with all requirements so far as the filing of his brief is concerned, and that appellee has so complied when he files his brief at *208least 5 days before the date set for submission.

-Under the rules, should we consider that it is necessary for the dispatch of business to have an index to appellant’s brief, we could authorize the clerk of this court to make such an index and to tax the costs thereof to the appellant. While we prefer that all briefs contain indices, when this cause comes up for consideration on the merits, we will either consider the case in the absence of the index, or, if we deem an index necessary, will order one made.

We find no merit in the third ground urged, and believe that the assignments of error are sufficient for our consideration.

The motion to strike appellant’s brief is overruled.
# C_2022151EN.01000501.xml

| 6.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/5

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

(2022/C 151/05)

Pursuant to Article 9(1), point (a), of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 374,

the Explanatory note to CN subheadings ‘8701 91 10 to 8701 95 90 Other, of an engine power’

is replaced by the following text:

‘These subheadings include so-called all-terrain vehicles (ATV), designed to be used as tractors. These four-wheeled vehicles are fitted with a motor-car-type steering system (based on the Ackerman principle) controlled by a handlebar, equipped with a coupling device of any kind, for example, a towing hitch, and feature the technical characteristics enabling them to haul or push a load, or to tow a non-braked trailer of twice their own dry weight (that is, the weight of the vehicle without any liquids, passengers or cargo) or more.

The following features are indicative of the technical characteristics generally applicable to the vehicles that fall under these subheadings:

| — | brakes on all wheels; |
| --- | --- |

—

brakes on all wheels;

| — | an automatic clutch and a reverse gear; |
| --- | --- |

—

an automatic clutch and a reverse gear;

| — | an engine specially designed for use in difficult terrain and capable in low ratio of delivering sufficient power; |
| --- | --- |

—

an engine specially designed for use in difficult terrain and capable in low ratio of delivering sufficient power;

| — | power transmission to the wheels by drive shafts; |
| --- | --- |

—

power transmission to the wheels by drive shafts;

| — | tyres having a deep tread design, suitable for rough terrain. |
| --- | --- |

—

tyres having a deep tread design, suitable for rough terrain.

The towing capacity can be proved by technical documentation, user manual or certificate from the manufacturer or from a national authority, specifying exactly in kilograms the towing capacity of the all-terrain vehicle, as well as its dry weight.

Where those vehicles are, furthermore, in accordance with the explanatory note to subheading 8701 91 10, they are to be classified according to their engine power, under subheadings 8701 91 10, 8701 92 10, 8701 93 10, 8701 94 10 or 8701 95 10, as agricultural or forestry tractors. Otherwise, they fall under subheadings 8701 91 90, 8701 92 90, 8701 93 90, 8701 94 90 or 8701 95 90.’

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.

---
# C_2022241EN.01000201.xml

| 24.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10771 – PLD / NBIM / UNIPART GROUP CAR PARK)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 241/02)

On 10 June 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 32022M10771. 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 32022M10771. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: August 26, 2014 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: EPA Region 1 SUBJECT: August 26, 2014 , Meeting with New Hampshire Staff Regarding Proposed

Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 26, 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
. Discussion covered state goal calculations and associated building blocks, particularl y with respect to achievability b y in

state generating sources
. **ATTENDEES (all by phone)**  New Hampshire: Joe Fontaine , Thomas Burack, Craig Wright, Robert Scott, Jim Cunningham EPA: Shutsu Wong, Dave Conroy, John Moskal, Bob McConnell, Joe Bryson, Michael Cohen, Brian Fisher, David Solomon, Debra Dalcher, Denise Mulholland, Erika Wilson, Jenny Noonan, Gabrielle Stevens, Misha Adamantiades, Kevin Culligan, Matt Clouse Questions from the states are attached.
# C_2022333EN.01000301.xml

| 1.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 333/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 333/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10633 – SUEZ / ACEA / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 333/03)

On 29 August 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 32022M10633. 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 32022M10633. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
This is a read - me file: ALLIANCE - READ - ME.DOC

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) in concert with AIAM, Honda and the California Oil Industry , performed a vehicle emissions test program on the effects of low sulfur fuel and on the effects of fuel oxygenate content. Results of that program were presented to the California Air Resources Board Clean Burning Fuel Workshop on July 12, 2001 in Sacramento. The presentation was given by Bob Gorse, Ford Motor Company . The presentation was posted on the ARB website and the present package contains an improved version of that presentation. We also promised to share the data behind the test program. This package contains a WinZip file containing the PowerPoint presentation, Excel data files having the test data, Excel files having the results of the statistical analysis, and an Excel file with fuel anal ys is information. The WinZip file is: AAM - AIAM Emissions Program.ZIP . Included files are: Alliance - CARB - Gorse.PPT the updated presentation Oil - Side Fuel Anal ys is.XLS fuel anal ys is data AAM Full Emissions Data Set.XL S data from individual vehicle tests AAM Veh Means.XLS calculated vehicle & fleet fuel - averages AAM TestData Information.XL S description of vehicles tested and tested parameters AAM Statistics - Sulfur.XLS statistical results for sulfur testing AAM Statistics - Ox ygen.XLS statistical results for oxygen testing AAM Statistics - By

Class.XL S statistical results for vehicle ty pes or categories AAM Statistics - Regressions.XL S Parameters of curve - fit response to fuel parameters Any questions can be directed to: Bob Gorse, Ford Motor Company Staff Technical Specialist Vehicle Environmental Engineering 313 - 594 - 6738 313 - 390 - 0382FAX rgorse@ford.com rgorse1234@aol.com
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00264-CR

Sheldon BARNES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR4518

Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 25, 2021

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant, who was indicted on two counts of criminal mischief, attempts to appeal the 

trial court’s ruling that he is incompetent to stand trial. The challenged ruling is not appealable. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.011 (“Neither the state nor the defendant is entitled to 

make an interlocutory appeal relating to a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005.”).1 On 

July 13, 2021, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing no later than July 30, 2021 why this 

1 A ruling under Article 46B.005 is a ruling regarding a defendant’s incompetency to stand trial. TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 46B.005.
04-21-00264-CR

- 2 -

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has not responded. This appeal 

is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH