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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1329 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1329

     To remove the use restrictions on certain land transferred to 
          Rockingham County, Virginia, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 13, 2015

   Mr. Kaine introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To remove the use restrictions on certain land transferred to 
          Rockingham County, Virginia, 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. REMOVAL OF USE RESTRICTION.

    Public Law 101-479 (104 Stat. 1158) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1. REMOVAL OF USE RESTRICTION.

    ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any restrictions in the deed in 
existence on or after the date of enactment of this Act, the parcel 
comprised of approximately 3.03 acres of land (including any 
improvements to the land) transferred by the United States to 
Rockingham County, Virginia (referred to in this section as the 
`County') on April 11, 1989, as described in deed book number 953 at 
page 600, may be used by the County as if the land had been transferred 
in fee simple with no use or other restrictions.
    ``(b) Documentation.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of the Interior shall take 
such actions as are necessary to issue to the County a fee simple deed 
to the land described in subsection (a) with no restrictions to the use 
of the land.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Will of Kraemer: Cornelius, Proponent, and others, Appellants, vs. Prange and others, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Bassswener & Humke*and *Benfey & Benfey,*all of Sheboygan. ■

For the respondents: *Charles Voigt*of Sheboygan.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### City of Milwaukee and others, Appellants, vs. Patton, Respondent.

*October 28*

November *17, 1914.*

*Taxation: Income tax: Crediting personal property tax.*

Upon payment of a tax assessed in 1913 for personal property omitted from tlie tax rolls in 1910 and 1911 through no fault of the taxpayer, he is entitled, under sec. 1087m — 26, Stats., to have the amount so paid credited on his income tax assessed during 1913.

*618Appeal from a judgment of tlie circuit court for Milwaukee county: IT. 0. EschweileR, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Ecr the appellants there was a brief by *Daniel W. Doan,*city attorney, *Max Schoetz, Jr.,*assistant city attorney, *Edward Yoclcey,*district attorney, and *Lyman Q. Wheeler,*special assistant district attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Schoetz.*

Eor the respondent there was a brief by *Flanders, Bottum', Fawsett & Bottum*and *Quarles, Spence &■ Quarles,*and oral argument by *W. 0. Quarles.*

WiNslow, C. J.

There is but a single question in this case, and that may well be stated abstractly. Sec. 1087m— 26, Stats. 1913, provides that any person who has paid a tax *assessed on his personal property during any year*shall be permitted to present the receipt therefor to the tax collector and have the same accepted in the payment of his income tax assessed *during said year.*

The question is whether a tax assessed in 1913 for personal property omitted from the tax rolls in the years 1910 and 1911, through no fault of the taxpayer, is a tax assessed during the year 1913, so that upon payment thereof he is entitled to have the amount credited on his income tax assessed during 1913. This question must be answered in the affirmative. The wording of the statute is jdain and not open to construction. The personal property taxes in question were assessed during the year 1913 and at no other time. The law must be obeyed as it is written.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005115EN.01000202.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 10 March 2005

in Case C-33/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 17 and 18 of the Sixth VAT Directive - Provision of national law under which an employer may deduct VAT on supplies of fuel to his employees when reimbursing their fuel costs)

(2005/C 115/04)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-33/03, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought before the Court on 28 January 2003 — Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: P. Ormond and C. Jackson, assisted by N. Pleming QC) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 March 2005, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

| 1. | Declares that, by granting taxable persons the right to deduct value added tax on certain supplies of fuel to non-taxable persons, contrary to the provisions of Articles 17(2)(a) and 18(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by granting taxable persons the right to deduct value added tax on certain supplies of fuel to non-taxable persons, contrary to the provisions of Articles 17(2)(a) and 18(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 83 of 05.04.2003.

1

---
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-7095 Directorate ID: 2015-SW-085-AD

Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-92A Helicopters.

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 80 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions are intended to prevent a crack in the tail gearbox center housing, which 

could lead to loss of tail rotor drive and loss of helicopter control.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $58,000

Labor per Helicopter

(24 work hours X $85 for 

inspection)

$2,040

Other

(Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $60,040

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Kristopher Greer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Unified Grocers, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended January 2, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alfred A. Plamann, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods presented in the Report.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 16, 2010



/s/    ALFRED A.
PLAMANNAlfred A. PlamannPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Michael J. McCann, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of PHI, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for theperiod covered by such Report.Date:November 9, 2006         By: /s/ Michael J. McCann Michael J. McCann      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### Klotz, Appellant, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway *&*Light Company, Respondent.

*December 6, 1910*—

January *10, 1911.*

*Appeal: Review: Exceptions: Record.*

An order directing a verdict cannot be reviewed on appeal from' tbe judgment unless exception to such order was taken at tbe' trial.

Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee-county: OkeeN T. Williamis, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

This action was brought to recover for personal injuries. Tbe negligence charged is tbat tbe motorman so unskilfully and negligently managed tbe car of tbe defendant as to strike' tbe rear wheel of tbe vehicle in which tbe plaintiff was driving, throwing her forward upon tbe dashboard and thereby causing-tbe injury. Tbe answer is substantially a general denial. Tbe issues involved are tbe negligence of tbe defendant, contributory negligence of tbe plaintiff, and tbe amount of damages. At tbe close of tbe evidence tbe court directed a verdict for tbe defendant on its motion. No objection was made to this motion on tbe part of tbe plaintiff, and no exception *385taken to the order granting it at the time it was granted or during the trial. The bill of exceptions does not show any exception, but it seems that after the trial an exception was filed which appears in the record and which it is stipulated may be treated as an exception after trial. Judgment was entered dismissing the plaintiffs complaint with costs, from which this appeal was taken.

*Harry M. Silbar,*for the appellant.

Eor the respondent there was a brief by *Van Byke, Bose-crantz, Shaw & Van Dyke,*and oral argument by *James B. Shav>.*

NeewiN, J.

An order directing a verdict cannot be reviewed in the absence of an exception to such order. *Miller v. Kenosha E. R. Co.*135 Wis. 68, 71, 115 N. W. 355; *Beebe v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co.*137 Wis. 269, 118 N. W. 108; *Holum v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co.*80 Wis. 299, 50 N. W. 99. That is the only order attempted to be reviewed here. No exception was filed in the instant case until after trial, and such exception is not sufficient. *Jenks v. State,*17 Wis. 665; *Firmeis v. State,*61 Wis. 140, 20 N. W. 663; *Adams v. McKay,*63 Wis. 404, 23 N. W. 575. It follows that we cannot review the order directing a verdict.

*By the Gourt.*— The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
#### Van Haltren, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*February 4*

*February 22, 1910.*

*Criminal law: Appeal: Sufficiency of evidence.*

Tile verdict in a criminal case win not be disturbed on appeal if there is any credible evidence which in any reasonable view supports it.

Ekrob to review a judgment of the municipal court of ’Milwaukee county: A. C. Bhazee, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Por the plaintiff in error there was a brief by *W. J. Ker-■shaw,*attorney, and *H. L. Baton,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Baton.*

*144Eor the defendant in error the cause was submitted on the-brief of *A. G. Backus,*district attorney, and *Norman L. Baker,*assistant, and the *Attorney General,*of counsel.

RakNes, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of the-crime of larceny, and from a judgment entered upon the verdict of guilty he prosecutes a writ of error in this court. The sole ground relied upon for a reversal of such judgment is that the evidence was not sufficient to support tire verdict.. “If there is any credible evidence which in any reasonable view supports a verdict it cannot be disturbed on appeal.” *Lam Yee v. State,*132 Wis. 527, 529, 112 N. W. 425, and cases cited. A careful examination of the testimony convinces us that there is sufficient evidence in the record to-support the verdict, having in mind the rule quoted. No useful purpose would be served by summarizing- such evidence in this opinion. .

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 798/2006

of 30 May 2006         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 31 May 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 May 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 30 May 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
-(S) NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C. 1111101=111111111

THE NRO STAFF November 27, 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. CARL DUCKETT, CIA

SUBJECT: NRO Photographic System Evaluation Functions

As you are aware, the Department of Defense announced

earlier this year that Westover Air Force Base, Massachusetti,

will be closed except for certain designated units including

the Air Force Special Projects Production Facility (AFSPPF).

For several reasons, it has now been decided to relocate the

functions performed by the AFSPPF and eventually close the

facility.

One function which must continue to be performed is

that of photographic system evaluation, and we favor moving

this activity to the National Photographic Interpretation

Center (NPIC). Informal discussions with NPIC have shown

that the functions in question are closely related to those

presently being performed, and that the capability can be

augmented to assume the additional workload.

The Direitor, NPIC, is willing to assume this additional

function. Manpower spaces, qualified people, and existing

equipment would be transferred to NPIC by the NRO sometime in

• late FY 1975 or FY 1976 as the AFSPPF is phased dawn. With

your concurrence, we will proceed to firm up and formalize

our planning. I woul

&MAL 041111111:11 OP

INICIPTIVII MOON IIXONPTION CATO. —TOP SECRE

COOP OP2 INICLANNPV ON sav ONT.

73
# NRO, USSPACECOM exercise the protection and defense of space assets

The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in collaboration with the newly re-established U.S. Space Command (USSPACECOM) concluded its participation in the 13th Air Force Space Command Schriever Wargame today, at Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama.

The two-week long wargame demonstrated how NRO, USSPACECOM, and the broader space community will work together to protect, defend, and operate the Nation’s space systems and those of our allies and partners.

“As adversaries increasingly threaten U.S. freedom of action in space, U.S. Space Command is a critical partner for the NRO,” said Dr. Christopher Scolese, Director of the NRO. “Space Command’s mission to protect and defend all U.S. satellites will enhance the survivability of NRO intelligence collection satellites and enable continuation of the national intelligence mission deep into conflict. Exercises like the Schriever Wargames provide us an opportunity to test and improve our joint planning process and shared defensive action ‘playbook’ to preserve assured access to space.”

“The Schriever Wargame provides an opportunity for us to exercise our jointly developed space protect and defend CONOPS,” said Gen Jay Raymond, Commander, USSPACECOM and Commander, Air Force Space Command. “Recently we’ve reached an agreement with the NRO that, when a threat is imminent, the NRO will execute direction from U.S. Space Command to take protective and defensive actions to safeguard their space assets.”

The ultimate purpose of this new agreement is to achieve unified action across the continuum of conflict. Although this agreement does not constitute a formal command relationship nor does it transfer satellite control authority, it signifies the strong partnership between the NRO and U.S. Space Command.

The mission of the NRO is to deliver innovative intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities and data to National policymakers, the Intelligence Community and warfighters.

The USSPACECOM mission is to deter aggression and conflict, defend U.S. and allied freedom of action, deliver space combat power for the Joint/Combined force, and develop joint warfighters to advance U.S. and allied interests in, from, and through the space domain.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
EXHIBIT 13.1
                                                                    ------------



               ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS LIMITED

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Asia Satellite Telecommunications Holdings Limited (the
"Company")  Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended  December 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Peter Jackson,  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; and

(2)     The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
        material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
        of the Company.


June 19, 2006


                                                /s/ Peter Jackson
                                                ----------------------
                                                Peter Jackson
                                                Chief Executive Officer
HQ OFFICE INSTRUCTION

NO. 25-5

HOZ 25-5

1112M111=0131111 1-3

HEADQUARTERS war= STATES AIR FORCE

Washington, 29 Mal 1981

Management

BASIC POLICY CONCERNING SAMOS

PURPOSE.. This instruction establishes the basic policy and the procedures that will be followed in the

SAMOS project. (11)

1. BACKGROUND:

Secretary of the Air Force Order No. 115.1, dated 31 August 1960, established the Office of

Missile and Satellite Systems in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. It provides that the Director of the Office of Missile and Satellite Systems is primarily responsible for assisting the Secretary

in di••.harging his responsibility for the direction, supervision, and control of the SAMOS project. (U)

Secretary of the Air Force Order No. 116.1, dated 31 August 1960, directed the organization of

a SAMOS Project Office as a field extension of the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. It specifies that the Director of the SAMOS Project is responsible to and will report directly to the Secretary

of the Air Force. (U)

2. POLICY. In recognition of the special management procedures and the necessity of achieving the

program objectives at the earliest date, the following policy is established for the SAMOS program: (U)

No information concerning this program will be initiated by Air Force organizations. -(G)-

This program Is a research and development (R&D) effort aimed at the development of various

promising reconnaissance techniques. (U)

e. The R&D program will include all the necessary elements to insure that the data which are obtained can be efficiently and promptly exploited. -0-

d. The nature and character of an ultimate operational system is completely conditional upon the

success of the methods which will be exploited in the R&D program. Therefcre as soon as sufficient

R&D progress is made to justify effective operational planning, specific instructions will be issued to

insure timely integration of this system is Air Force operational inventory. -(6)—

3. PROCEDURES:

SAMOS project information will not be included in the Program Documents (example: PG, PD)

described in AFM 27-1. (U)

SAMOS project information will be furnished as necessary for legislative matters by the Director of the Office of Missile and Satellite Systems. (U)

The Director of the. Office of Missile and Satellite Systems will keep the key elements of the Air

Staff and the commands informed, as necessary, regarding this program. (U)

Documents reflecting Air Force requirements for reconnaissance will continue to be prepared

and should Le forwarded through normal channels to the United States Intelligence Board for consideration InSAMOS project requirements. -0-

OPI: MIND •

=mums= (U): (See page 2)

OS 6 1-2 60 8 -AP

-SECRET-- COPY NUMBER

ND DIN.

INC DY

VS:?;

-I - or- - - •. .81-1834, AF

Page of PiagelSa•

/ Pr

Control. "