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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2729 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2729

 To authorize appropriations to the Secretary of Commerce to establish 
  public-private partnerships under the Market Development Cooperator 
   Program of the International Trade Administration, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2015

   Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. Meehan) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize appropriations to the Secretary of Commerce to establish 
  public-private partnerships under the Market Development Cooperator 
   Program of the International Trade Administration, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Export Promotion Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR 
              PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

    (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of Commerce, for the period beginning on the date of the 
enactment of this Act and ending on the last day of the 18th month 
thereafter, $4,000,000 for the Manufacturing and Services unit of the 
International Trade Administration--
            (1) to establish public-private partnerships under the 
        Market Development Cooperator Program of the International 
        Trade Administration; and
            (2) to underwrite a portion of the start-up costs for new 
        projects carried out under that Program to strengthen the 
        competitiveness and market share of United States industry, not 
        to exceed, for each such project, the lesser of--
                    (A) \1/3\ of the total start-up costs for the 
                project; or
                    (B) $500,000.
    (b) Requirements.--In obligating and expending the funds 
appropriated pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary of Commerce 
shall give preference--
            (1) to activities that assist small- and medium-sized 
        businesses in the United States; and
            (2) to activities that the Secretary determines will create 
        or sustain the greatest number of jobs in the United States or 
        obtain the maximum return on investment.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23




                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
March 22, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Phillips Petroleum Company included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1999, in the following registration statements and related
prospectuses.

  Phillips Petroleum Company        Form S-3   File No. 333-81589

  Phillips Petroleum Company        Form S-3   File No. 333-53519

  Phillips Petroleum Company        Form S-3   File No. 033-54987

  Thrift Plan of Phillips
    Petroleum Company               Form S-8   File No. 033-50134

  Long-Term Stock Savings Plan of
    Phillips Petroleum Company      Form S-8   File No. 333-67073

  Retirement Savings Plan of
    Phillips Petroleum Company      Form S-8   File No. 033-28669

  Omnibus Securities Plan of
    Phillips Petroleum Company      Form S-8   File No. 333-31355

  Phillips Petroleum Company
    Stock Plan for Non-Employee
    Directors                       Form S-8   File No. 333-67059

  Phillips Petroleum Overseas
    Stock Savings Plan              Form S-8   File No. 333-65769

  Employee Share Allocation Scheme
    of Phillips Petroleum Company
    United Kingdom Limited          Form S-8   File No. 333-65771



                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 22, 2000

<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 11

                       SBI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                       ------------------------
              COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
              ----------------------------------------
                      FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
                      ------------------------
                      JUNE 30, 2000 AND 1999
                       ----------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Six Months     Six Months
                                              Ended            Ended
                                          June 30, 2000    June 30, 1999
                                          --------------   --------------
<S>                                       <C>            <C>
Shares outstanding:                           6,070,439        5,570,439
Weighted average shares outstanding           6,070,439        5,570,439
Net loss                                  ($    306,638)   ($    145,000)
Preferred Dividend                                --               --
                                          --------------   --------------
Total                                     (     306,638)        (145,000)
Net loss per share                         $      (0.05)   $       (0.03)
                                          --------------   --------------
</TABLE>
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2880 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the Martin Luther King, Junior, National 

Historic Site in the State of Georgia, 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, 
2 

•HR 2880 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Martin Luther King, 

3 Jr. National Historical Park Act of 2016’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. NATIONAL HISTORICAL 

5 PARK. 

6 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to establish the Martin Lu7 ther King, Junior, National Historic Site in the State of 

8 Georgia, and for other purposes’’ (Public Law 96–428) 

9 is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (a) of the first section, by 

11 striking ‘‘the map entitled ‘Martin Luther King, 

12 Junior, National Historic Site Boundary Map’, num13 ber 489/80,013B, and dated September 1992’’ and 

14 inserting ‘‘the map entitled ‘Martin Luther King, Jr. 

15 National Historical Park Proposed Boundary Revi16 sion’, numbered 489/128,786 and dated June 

17 2015’’; 

18 (2) by striking ‘‘Martin Luther King, Junior, 

19 National Historic Site’’ each place it appears and in20 serting ‘‘Martin Luther King, Jr. National Histor21 ical Park’’; 

22 (3) by striking ‘‘national historic site’’ each 

23 place it appears and inserting ‘‘national historical 

24 park’’; 

25 (4) by striking ‘‘historic site’’ each place it ap26 pears and inserting ‘‘historical park’’; and 
3 

•HR 2880 EH

1 (5) by striking ‘‘historic sites’’ in section 2(a) 

2 and inserting ‘‘historical parks’’. 

3 SEC. 3. REFERENCES. 

4 Any reference in a law (other than this Act), map, 

5 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

6 States to ‘‘Martin Luther King, Junior, National Historic 

7 Site’’ shall be deemed to be a reference to ‘‘Martin Luther 

8 King, Jr. National Historical Park’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 24, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2880 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the Martin Luther King, Junior, 

and for other purposes. National Historic Site in the State of Georgia,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      22,548,776
<SECURITIES>                                18,360,109
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,876
<INVENTORY>                                    250,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,914,911
<PP&E>                                         856,679
<DEPRECIATION>                                 154,524
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,625,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,946,253
<BONDS>                                        551,897
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,214
<OTHER-SE>                                  45,118,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,625,584
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,909,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,150,306)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,150,306)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,150,306)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.37)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered May 6, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 01369 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 01370 - CR JEREMY DEANDRE TAYLO R, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F07 - 60081 - K , F07 - 60083 - K



### O RDER The Court GRANTS appellant’s motion to order court reporter to file record. We ORDER Janice Garrett, the official court reporter for Criminal District Court No. 4, to file a supplemental rep orter’s record that contains the September 13, 2013 revocation hearing within FIFTEEN (15) DAYS from the date of this order. We ORDER appellant to file the brief within FORTY - FIVE (45) DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
# C_2023258EN.01001201.xml

| 21.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/12

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.104984

(2023/C 258/10)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 30.5.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.104984 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | ‘Digitalisering aan boord in kader van Brexit-investeringen en wetenschappelijke ondersteuning’ |
| Legal basis | (a) | Projectovereenkomst Nummer BAR0085 Digitalisering aan boord in kader van Brexit — investeringen (b) Projectovereenkomst Nummer BAR0141 Digitalisering aan boord in kader van Brexit — wetenschappelijke ondersteuning |

Date of adoption of the decision

30.5.2023

Aid number

SA.104984

Member State

Belgium

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

‘Digitalisering aan boord in kader van Brexit-investeringen en wetenschappelijke ondersteuning’

Legal basis

(a)

Projectovereenkomst Nummer BAR0085 Digitalisering aan boord in kader van Brexit — investeringen (b) Projectovereenkomst Nummer BAR0141 Digitalisering aan boord in kader van Brexit — wetenschappelijke ondersteuning

Type of measure

Scheme

SMEs, owners of an active Belgian flagged fishing vessel, engaged in professional fishing at sea

Objective

Fisheries and aquaculture

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 4 502 035 EUR

Annual budget: 4 502 035 EUR

Intensity

75,0  %

Duration

3.1.2023 — 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

Marine fishing

Name and address of the granting authority

| Agentschap Innoveren & Ondernemen |
| --- |
| Koning Albert II Laan 35, 1030 Brussel |

Agentschap Innoveren & Ondernemen

Koning Albert II Laan 35, 1030 Brussel

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Otter Tail Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin
G. Moug, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Kevin G. MougKevin G. MougChief Financial Officer and TreasurerMarch 12, 2004
#### ABRAHAM v. STATE.

No. 14391.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1931.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1931.

Hughes & Monroe, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for permitting a gaming device to remain in a building in possession of appellant to be used for gaming purposes; punishment, thirty days in the county jail.

We find in this record no statement of facts or bills of exception. By the terms of article 630 of our Penal Code it is provided that, if any person shall knowingly permit any gaming device to remain in his possession or on premises under his control to be used for gaming purposes, he shall be imprisoned in jail not less than thirty days nor more than one year. The information in this case sufficiently charges the offense, and is followed by the judgment.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

The prosecution is under article 630, P. C. 1925, which reads as follows: “If any person shall knowingly permit any gaming paraphernalia, table, or device or equipment of a gaming house, of any character whatever to remain in his possession or on premises under his control or of which he is owner and to be used for gaming purposes, he shall be imprisoned in jail not less than thirty days nor more than one year.”

The information contains the following:

> “ 3⁄8 7⁄8 3⁄8 xiicl unlawfully and knowingly permit a gaming device to-wit: a device commonly known as a slot machine to remain! in his possession and on his premises under his control, then and there situated in Dallas County, Texas, to be used for gaming purposes.”

Apparently the information sufficiently charges the offense denounced by the statute, quoted above.

The judgment was entered on the 18th day of February, 1931. On the same day the motion for new trial was filed and overruled. Subsequently, on the following day, an amended motion was filed, in which it was claimed by the appellant that upon his arrest, and before he was allowed to make bail or interview counsel, he was taken before the court; that he was informed by the arresting officer that the punishment for the offense would be by a fine only; that upon such information he entered a plea of guilty; that no warning was administered to him by the trial court. The motion was supported by no proof, so far as shown by the record, except the affidavit of the accused. There seems to have been no permission obtained to file the amended or second motion after the first motion was overruled. Such permission was a matter of discretion of the trial court, in the absence of which this court would not be authorized to reverse the conviction. The amended motion, filed without permission after the original motion was overruled and supported by the appellant’s affidavit alone, is not such a showing as would justify this court iq ordering a reversal of the judgment. See Alvarado v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 181, 202 S. W. 322.

The motion in arrest of judgment challenges the sufficiency of the information to which reference has been made above.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
# C_2022159EN.01000301.xml

| 12.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10632 – WATERLAND / DUVENBECK)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 159/03)

On 25 March 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 32022M10632. 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 32022M10632. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
# C_2022423EN.01001101.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/11

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1)
  )

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 423/06)

Decision granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder(s) of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2022) 7569 | 31 October 2022 | 4-(1,1,3,3-Tetra methylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated
  (4-tert-OPnEO)
  EC No: -, CAS No:- | Instrumentation Laboratory SpA, Viale Monza 338, 20128, Milano Italy | REACH/22/42/0 | As a lysing agent for red blood cells in blood analysis diagnostic device | 4 January 2033 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies. |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder(s) of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2022) 7569

31 October 2022

4-(1,1,3,3-Tetra methylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated

(4-tert-OPnEO)

EC No: -, CAS No:-

Instrumentation Laboratory SpA, Viale Monza 338, 20128, Milano Italy

REACH/22/42/0

As a lysing agent for red blood cells in blood analysis diagnostic device

4 January 2033

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu).

---
* 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 October 14, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40548 Summary Calendar

JORGE ALVAREZ Plaintiff - Appellant

v. RON ENGLAND, Camp County Deputy Sheriff Defendant - Appellee

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:02-CV-184

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Jorge Alvarez appeals from the district court’s summaryjudgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Ronald England, a former deputy sheriff of Camp County, Texas. Alvarez asserts that England violated the Fourth Amendment by applying excessive, objectively unreasonable force against him, thereby causing him injury. Alvarez further argues that England is not protected by qualified immunity.No. 03-40548 -2- Alvarez was a passenger in a vehicle that was frequently driven by Valentin Aguirre, an individual with an extensive criminal history which included assault and weapons violations. The police believed that Aguirre might be in possession of firearms and illegal narcotics. Alvarez did not comply with the police officers’ orders to remain in the vehicle, and once he was out of the car, to get on the ground. England could recognize Aguirre and knew that Alvarez was not Aguirre. However, because the windows of the vehicle were tinted, the police could not see if Aguirre was hidden in the car or if the occupants of the car possessed weapons. Under those circumstances, it was objectively reasonable for a police officer to believe that Alvarez posed a serious danger to the officers and the public when he appeared to head back into the car and it was objectively reasonable for a police officer to apply non-deadly force to gain control over the situation. This court is not to employ “the 20/20 vision of hindsight,” but must consider “the fact that police officers are often forced to make split second judgments--in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving--about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” See Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989). Because no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that England’s use of force was unreasonable and excessive, this court need not decide whether England is entitled to qualified immunity.No. 03-40548 -3- The district court did not err in awarding summary judgment to England.

AFFIRMED.