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

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02569]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: Election Assistance Commission.

DATE AND TIME:  Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE:  1335 East West Highway (First Floor Conference Room), Silver 
Spring, MD 20910.

STATUS:  This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: 
Selection of Chair and Vice-Chair
Accreditation Decision for Pro V&V
Briefing and Discussion of Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG 
1.1)
Briefing and Discussion of Program Manuals
Discussion and Consideration of Roles and Responsibilities Document

AGENDA: Commissioners will meet to select a chair and vice-chair and to 
discuss the following items: Accreditation Decision for Pro V&V; 
Briefing and Discussion of Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG 
1.1); Briefing and Discussion of Program Manuals; and Discussion and 
Consideration of Roles and Responsibilities Document.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Members of the public who wish to speak at the meeting 
on proposed changes to the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines VVSG 1.1 
may send a request to participate to the EAC no later than 5:00 p.m. 
EDT on Thursday, February 12, 2015. Due to time constraints, the EAC 
will select no more than 7 participants to speak. Each of those 
selected will be allotted 5 minutes. Participants will be selected on a 
first-come, first-served basis. However, to maximize diversity of 
input, only one participant per organization or entity will be chosen, 
if necessary. Participants will receive confirmation by 12:00 p.m. EDT 
on Thursday, February 13, 2015. Requests to speak may be sent to the 
EAC via email at [email protected], via standard mail addressed to the 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1335 East West Highway, Suite 
4300, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or by fax at 301-734-3108. All requests 
must include a description of the topic to be discussed, contact 
information that will be used to notify the requestor with status of 
request (phone number or email); include on the subject/attention line 
or on the outside of the envelope if by standard mail: EAC Public 
Meeting.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (301) 
563-3961.

    Submitted: February 4, 2015.
Signed: Bryan Whitener,
Director of Communications & Clearinghouse.
[FR Doc. 2015-02569 Filed 2-4-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
# C_2004300EN.01004502.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/45

---

Action brought on 17 September 2004 by Grandits GmbH and five others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-375/04)

(2004/C 300/89)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 September 2004 by Grandits GmbH, Kirchschlag (Austria), Scheuer-Fleisch GmbH, Ungerdorf (Austria), Tauernfleisch Vertriebs-GmbH, Flattach (Austria), Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Glanegg (Austria), Wech-Geflügel GmbH, St. Andrä (Austria) and Johann Zsifkovics, Vienna (Austria), represented by J. Hofer and T. Humer, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 30 June 2004 (C(2004) 2037 final), concerning State Aid NN 34A 2000/Österreich ‘Qualitätsprogramme und das AMA-Biozeichen und das AMA-Gütesiegel’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 30 June 2004 (C(2004) 2037 final), concerning State Aid NN 34A 2000/Österreich ‘Qualitätsprogramme und das AMA-Biozeichen und das AMA-Gütesiegel’;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants first claim infringement of procedural rules. The Commission treated the measures which formed the subject-matter of the contested decision as notified aid, although Austria had given no such notification. The Commission infringed Article 4(4) of Regulation 659/1999, as it had no discretion and should have instituted the formal investigation procedure. The Commission infringed the duty to state reasons because it did not carefully and impartially examine all the legal and factual considerations brought to its notice by the applicants. A period of 52 months was disproportionate in the context of the preliminary investigation procedure and constituted an infringement of the general principle that proceedings should be of a reasonable duration.

The applicants further claim infringement of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. The Commission assumed, on the basis of insufficient enquiries and factual findings, that the requirements for the exception under Article 87(3)(c) EC were fulfilled.

Finally, the applicants claim that there has been infringement of the prohibition on implementation in accordance with the third sentence of Article 88(3) EC and Article 3 of Regulation No 659/99. There is, they maintain, a prohibition on implementing aids that have not been notified, and retrospective curing of the defect by the final decision is not permissible.

---
#### Guardianship of Mandsager: Hagen, Appellant, vs. Mandsager, Respondent.

For the appellant: *D. M. Langve*of Westby, and *Hale & Skemp*of La Crosse.

For the respondent: *Schubert & Stevenson*of La Crosse.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005045EN.01001904.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/19

---

Removal from the register of Case C-194/03 (1)

1

(2005/C 45/38)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 19 October 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-194/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Georg Friedrich Baur Jr., executor of the estate of Georg Friedrich Baur Sr. v Hauptzollamt Kiel.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.03.

1

---
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION


REQUIRED
BY RULE 13a-14(b) or


RULE
15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(AS
ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)








I, Richard W. Lucas, as Chief Financial
Officer of KSW, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) on the date hereof 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
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations  of the Company.





Dated:  August
9, 2010




/s/
      Richard W. LucasRichard
      W. LucasChief
      Financial Officer
Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

Conservation Practice Standard Overview May 2016 

Silvopasture Establishment (Code 381) 

Silvopasture establishment involves establishing a 

combination of trees and compatible forages on the 

same acreage. Shrubs may be used along with trees 

and forages where desired and compatible.

Practice Information

Silvopasture systems are specifically designed and 

managed to produce trees, forage, and livestock on 

the same acreage. Silvopasture is created when 

forage crops are introduced or enhanced in a forested

system (typically a plantation), when trees are added to a forage system, or when both trees and 

forages are established on suitable land. 

Silvopasture practices contribute to the well-being of livestock, providing high-quality forages along 

with shade and shelter from sun, wind, and storms. They can be designed to produce income from 

wood products in the longer term, and a livestock operation in the short-term.

Silvopastures can provide cost-effective economic returns with environmental benefits such as— 

• increased carbon capture and storage

• improved water quality

• reduced erosion

• improved soil quality

• enhanced wildlife habitat

Where trees or shrubs are planted, species selection, site preparation, planting date and method, and 

tree spacing will vary depending on the specific purpose of the silvopasture, and on site conditions. 

Once planted, trees and shrubs need to be inspected periodically and protected from insects, 

diseases, competing vegetation, fire, and damage from livestock or wildlife.

Depending on the site, supplemental water may be required to ensure survival during the 

establishment period, typically 1 to 3 years. Replanting trees or forage may be necessary to meet 

objectives. Periodic applications of nutrients may be needed to maintain plant vigor.

Common Associated Practices

Silvopasture Establishment (Code 381) is commonly applied with conservation practices such as 

Tree/Shrub Site Preparation (Code 490), Forest Stand Improvement (Code 666), Tree/Shrub 

Establishment (Code 612), Tree/Shrub Pruning (Code 660), Forage and Biomass Planting (Code 

512), Range Planting (Code 550), Prescribed Grazing (Code 528), Grassed Waterway (Code 412), 

and Upland Wildlife Habitat Management (Code 645). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.

Natural Resources Conservation Service
# C_2005045EN.01001201.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/12

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 October 2004

in Case C-238/03 P: Maja Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeal - Community financial aid - Discontinuation of aid granted for the modernisation of an agricultural production unit)

(2005/C 45/23)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-238/03 P: Maja Srl, formerly Ca' Pasta Srl (lawyers: P. Piva, R. Mastroianni and G. Arendt ) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer) – appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 14 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Maja Srl is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Maja Srl is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.

1

---
# C_2005031EN.01001202.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by decision of that court of 26 November 2004 in the case of J. Slob against het Productschap Zuivel

(Case C-496/04)

(2005/C 31/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative court for trade and industry) Netherlands of 26 November 2004 received at the Court Registry on 1 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of J. Slob against het Productschap Zuivel on the following questions:

| — | Is Article 7(1) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 (1) to be interpreted as giving a Member State a discretion as to whether to lay down a rule imposing on producers of milk products established in its territory an obligation to keep records which is more extensive than the obligation under Article 7(1)(f)? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is Article 7(1) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 (1) to be interpreted as giving a Member State a discretion as to whether to lay down a rule imposing on producers of milk products established in its territory an obligation to keep records which is more extensive than the obligation under Article 7(1)(f)?

1

| — | If the answer to this question is affirmative, must it then be held that a rule requiring the producer to account to the administration for the quantity of butter produced and for its use, even where the butter has been destroyed or used as feeding stuff, is within the Member State's discretion? |
| --- | --- |

—

If the answer to this question is affirmative, must it then be held that a rule requiring the producer to account to the administration for the quantity of butter produced and for its use, even where the butter has been destroyed or used as feeding stuff, is within the Member State's discretion?

---

(1)  OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p 12.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             320
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,689
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,725
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           4,902
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             4,937
<LOANS>                                         27,199
<ALLOWANCE>                                        142
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,836
<DEPOSITS>                                      18,045
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                317
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,562
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,912
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  46,836
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,625
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  941
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,566
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 687
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 764
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,802
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       17
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 837
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.50
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   137
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  142
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            142
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005006EN.01003603.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/36

---

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 October 2004

in Case T-193/04 R, Hans-Martin Tillack v Commission of the European Communities

(Proceedings for interim measures - Application for interim relief and for suspension of operation of a measure)

(2005/C 6/72)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-193/04 R: Hans-Martin Tillack, represented by I. Forrester QC, T. Bosly, C. Arhold, N. Flandin, J. Herrlinger and J. Siaens, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Docksey and C. Ladenburger, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for suspension of any further implementation or action pursuant to the alleged complaint of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 11 February 2004 to the Belgian and German judicial authorities and for an order that OLAF refrain from obtaining, inspecting, examining or hearing the contents of any documents and information in the possession of the Belgian and German judicial authorities following the search of the applicant's home and office carried out on 19 March 2004 — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 15 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 211 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 211

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to complete a land exchange 
  with the Chugach Regional Alaska Native Corporation, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to complete a land exchange 
  with the Chugach Regional Alaska Native Corporation, 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 ``Chugach Region Lands Study Act''.

SEC. 2. CHUGACH ALASKA CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE POOL ACT.

    (a) Definitions.--In this Act:
            (1) CAC.--The term ``CAC'' means Chugach Alaska 
        Corporation.
            (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Alaska.
            (3) CAC lands.--The term ``CAC Lands'' means lands conveyed 
        to CAC pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
        U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) in which--
                    (A) both the surface estate and the subsurface 
                estate were conveyed to CAC; or
                    (B) the subsurface estate was conveyed to CAC and 
                the surface estate or a conservation easement in the 
                surface estate was acquired by the State or by the 
                United States as part of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 
                Trustee Council Habitat Protection and Acquisition 
                Program.
    (b) Identification of Federal Lands.--Not later than 1 year after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, 
in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture and in consultation 
with Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC), shall identify not less than 
500,000 acres of economically viable Federal land in or outside the 
State of Alaska that can be made available to CAC in exchange for any 
CAC Lands identified by CAC as available to the United States for 
exchange. Any such exchange shall be pursuant to mutual agreement of 
CAC and the United States and consummated in accordance with all 
applicable legal authorizations, except that any acre-for-acre exchange 
of such Federal lands for such CAC Lands shall be conclusively deemed 
to be in the public interest.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**




**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**










To
      the
      Board of Directors and Stockholders of


Organic
      To Go Food Corporation:





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form S-8 (No. 333-143118) of Organic To Go Food Corporation of our report
      dated March 17, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements which
      appear in this Form 10-K.









Rose,
      Snyder & Jacobs


A
      Corporation of Certified Public Accountants





Encino,
      California


March
      27,
      2008
# C_2004300EN.01003401.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/34

---

Action brought on 7 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Edith Cresson

(Case C-432/04)

(2004/C 300/64)

An action against Edith Cresson was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Peter Hartvig and Julian Currall, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that Edith Cresson has failed to comply with her obligations under Article 213 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that Edith Cresson has failed to comply with her obligations under Article 213 EC;

| 2. | consequently, order the forfeiture in part or in whole of Mrs Cresson's pension rights and/or any other benefits linked to those rights or standing in their stead, the Commission leaving it to the discretion of the Court to determine the duration and extent of that forfeiture; |
| --- | --- |

2.

consequently, order the forfeiture in part or in whole of Mrs Cresson's pension rights and/or any other benefits linked to those rights or standing in their stead, the Commission leaving it to the discretion of the Court to determine the duration and extent of that forfeiture;

| 3. | order Mrs Cresson to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order Mrs Cresson to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

During her term of office as a Member of the Commission, Mrs Cresson engaged in acts of favouritism for the benefit of two personal friends, contrary to the public interest and to her obligations under Article 213 EC. One of them was recruited on the initiative of Mrs Cresson although his profile did not correspond to the various posts to which he was recruited. Protection by Mrs Cresson then became apparent on several occasions even though the work he performed was manifestly inadequate in quality, quantity and relevance. Similarly, again on the initiative of Mrs Cresson, contracts were offered to another of her friends, without corresponding to a request or requirement of the Commission. Mrs Cresson's conduct was not dictated by the interests of the institution but was motivated essentially by the wish to do a favour for those two persons. At the very least, Mrs Cresson did not at any time make inquiries as to the correctness of the decisions made or procedures applied, although such a check was necessary in the case of persons with whom she had relations of friendship. That behaviour thus appears to constitute an act of favouritism or at the least obvious negligence.

---