alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

PETITION OF ROBERT L. 

TAYLOR FOR A WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS 

§ 

§ No. 459, 2017 

§ 

§ 

 

 Submitted: December 18, 2017 

 Decided: December 20, 2017 

Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

O R D E R

This 20th day of December 2017, having considered the notice to show cause 

and the petitioner’s response, it appears to the Court that: 

(1) On November 6, 2017, the petitioner, Robert L. Taylor, filed a petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Taylor had previously filed a petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court that was denied on October 24, 2017. 

In a November 6, 2017 letter, the Senior Court Clerk advised Taylor that if he wished 

to appeal the October 24, 2017 Superior Court order, then he needed to file an 

Official Form A in this Court by November 21, 2017. The Senior Court Clerk also 

advised that if Taylor wished to proceed with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

in this Court a notice to show cause would issue because this Court lacks jurisdiction 

to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Taylor did not respond to the November 6, 2017 

letter or file an Official Form A. 
2

(2) On December 5, 2017, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing 

Taylor to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack 

of jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. In his response to the notice to show 

cause, Taylor addresses the merits of his petition, but does not address this Court’s 

lack of jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. This Court has no original 

jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus.1

 Taylor’s petition must therefore be 

dismissed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 

that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice 

 

1

 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(5); 10 Del. C. § 6901; In re Cantrell, 678 A.2d 525, 526 (Del. 1996).
# CE2004078EN.01062301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/623 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/623

---

(2004/C 78 E/0658)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3651/03

by Cees Bremmer (PPE-DE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Poor working conditions for au pairs in the Netherlands

Subject:

Is the Commission aware of the poor working conditions which apply to 70 % of au pairs in the Netherlands, who are compelled to perform too much, and excessively heavy, domestic work and to care for children for more than the permitted 30 hours per week, as revealed by a report by the Netherlands Ministry of Justice which is as yet unpublished but will be published shortly (according to the Volkskrant newspaper of 25 November 2003)?

Is the Commission further aware that the proliferation of agencies on the Internet, the lack of any quality certification system for such agencies, the protracted visa procedures and the high costs, due to which many au pairs are employed illegally, lead to a situation in which au pairs' rights are insufficiently respected?

Is the Commission aware that these circumstances do not accord with its own recommendation to the Member States to sign and ratify at the earliest opportunity the Council of Europe's European Agreement on au pair placement of 24 November 1969, which lays down rules, inter alia, on working conditions and the setting-up of national consultative and information bodies?

Can the Commission establish to what extent au pairs are similarly exploited in other Member States?

How will the Commission tackle this practice, bearing in mind, inter alia, the growing uncertainty about the safeguarding of au pairs' rights — irrespective of their own responsibility — and in view of the Commission's duty to encourage close cooperation among the Member States in the field of social policy (Article 136 in conjunction with Article 140 of the EC Treaty)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

(23 January 2004)

There is no specific Community legislation aimed at au pairs. In so far as they are considered to be workers according to the definition in the country where they work, they are, in general, covered by the existing labour law directives.

The Commission has through Recommendation 85/64/EEC of 20 December 1984 (1). recommended that Member States sign and ratify the European agreement of the Council of Europe of 24 November 1969 on au pair placement. Based on the information the Commission has received so far regarding the situation of au pairs, it has not been considered necessary to take any further specific actions.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.1985.

1

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

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,451,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,000
<INVENTORY>                                    3521964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6205672
<PP&E>                                       4,794,221
<DEPRECIATION>                                 656,554
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,911,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,194,699
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,530
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,388,836
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,911,065
<SALES>                                      2,787,441
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,803,123
<CGS>                                        1,820,304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  697,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               59282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,151
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,166
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,469
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,985
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        



</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01065201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/652 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/652

---

(2004/C 88 E/0669)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3857/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Development aid programme for India

Subject:

A series of projects have been financed under the development aid programme for India, which amounted to EUR 84 million in 2001. Would the Commission state the exact number of projects funded and whether, in the case of each project, it checked the successful implementation of the costs involved and the initiatives launched?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

(2 February 2004)

The amount referred to by the Honourable Member consists of the total disbursements (EUR 84 million) for India during the year 2001. In comparison, disbursements amounted to over EUR 103 million in 2002 and about the same amount in 2003.

In 2001, the portfolio of the main Community development co-operation activities under implementation in India can be divided into three broad categories:

| — | twelve agricultural and rural development projects implemented by government agencies; |
| --- | --- |

—

twelve agricultural and rural development projects implemented by government agencies;

| — | two sector support programmes (one for education and one for health and family welfare); |
| --- | --- |

—

two sector support programmes (one for education and one for health and family welfare);

| — | four projects implemented by large non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (three on rural development and one on education). |
| --- | --- |

—

four projects implemented by large non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (three on rural development and one on education).

In its most recent report (Special Report No 10/2003 on the ‘Effectiveness of the Commission's management of development assistance to India in targeting the poor and ensuring sustainable benefit’), the Court of Auditors concluded that the Commission's management has been successful in targeting the poor and in addressing sustainability. Moreover, the Commission ensures that all its main projects (over EUR 1 million) are subject to an external monitoring at least once a year.

---
AAM-11-339-E June 14, 2011

Exemption No. 10287 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0600

Mr. Scott Bekken Director of Operations Executive Air Taxi Corp.

P.O. Box 2273 Bismarck, ND 58502

Dear Mr. Bekken:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated June 2, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Executive Air Taxi, Inc (EAT) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow EAT to cover its safetysensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to EAT.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Executive Air Taxi, Corp. an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow EAT to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation, subject to the

conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Executive Air Taxi are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the auspices of the Executive Air Taxi part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
# C_2005065EN.01000401.xml

| 17.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/4

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.3625 — Blackstone/Acetex)

(2005/C 65/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 March 2005, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference No COMP/M.3625 — Blackstone/Acetex, to the following address:

| Commission of the European Communities |
| --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

Commission of the European Communities

Competition DG

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 7, 2007
    /s/ Christina W. HaganChristina W. HaganExecutive Vice President, Secretary and Chief
Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer)
-

REF ID:A516895 

"Bobertacm Report" 

S/IBB't (Capt. Bol:tvick) 

fdM/can 

l. All the result ot ~ 41rectiw tm.t I take over the tuk ot m:mitar1Dg 

the etatua ot S..lwutat1c:m ot reccwndatioDa ma.ae by tbe Spec:lal B~ Group 

ot the ISASAB, I haw atudied th18 report exhauat1ve~. With the belp ot 

Captain llcJ>onel41 ot llr. FrieamD'• office, I ba:n prepared the atta.ched. 8tatt 

8~.. It 1lrterprete tle -.lieut f'•turea ot the repm L, and l1sta specific 

actic:ma which ahould 'be unaertaken 1n carr,y1Ds out the Group's recorwmM.tiona. 

2. I recnmenc1 tbat i 

a. J'ou approve tbe attache4 It~. 

b. PROD, B/D CCIII, PERS, Dll 1 and P /P each be furnished a copy. 

c. Pren.oua 41rect1'1'88 concerDiDg prosreaa and status reports on the 

Robertson Jleport 'be cancelled. 

d. Each organization listed 1n b. above be directed. to include as 

&11 addendum to it• llonthl.1' Operational Summry a statement or~ 

a:lgnif'icant progresa mc1e durillg the :mcmth on ~ of the actions listed 

in Appem11x A of the attached Study. 

J. s. B>I4VICK 

Captain, u. s. Be.vy Special Asaiatant 

c •.• A.· S !I il c-f · : .. .!" Cr 

., i 7 ' ,, .... <!t. ........... ,._,,::, '"'~- ;. .. - ....... ,. F'..c·:: '1'1'VA. ( •~r·,a '~ .... S. 1 . t.71-,.: .. ~ t I f. ••.. ;,n· r . . . . . . . . . .- ... ,, ... ~tow,..~' "• :O!Ln.. (Hl'n .,,; -; .. · . :-. ·. , ;-~. ~\: .J'' I' i.•=.•-·: ', I" . .!•:,i ';.._'": 1';;r 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 03-20-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       6,022,258
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,022,258
<PP&E>                                      24,562,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,585,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          175,195
<BONDS>                                      4,258,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,151,619
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,585,014
<SALES>                                        902,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               971,658
<CGS>                                          262,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               202,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                505,868
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            505,868
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   505,868
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.27
        

</TABLE>
USCIB: l3/296 

005 

C!(s. /i.A~ 

, P/P '-+.!J) .. 

2.4 

3 Dec-.. 1952 

l!MIA!IIJJ( P9l TD DMB!R§ fl uscm: 

8ub.1eots 

USCIBt U/296 

:::r:!r at ,,m~m~'1Cltlu~ 

(a) usc:m J:J/290 dt.d 5 lcw 52. · (b) USC!B l3"/295 --4 24 Rew 52. 

TOP SECRET 

• 

·· · jEO 3.3(h)(2) 

..... /"_,..::> PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 02-19-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B
#### Goodman and wife, Appellants, vs. Fox River Improvement Company, Respondent.

For the appellants: *T. L. Doyle,*attorney, and *Cecilia Doyle*of counsel, both of Fond du Lac.

For the respondent: *Duffy & Diiffy*of Fond du Lac, attorneys, and *Bird, Smith, Okoneski & Puchner*of Wausau of counsel.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

Fowler, J., took no part.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: May 9, 2006
    /s/ Christina W. HaganChristina W. HaganExecutive Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             470
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,464
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,782
<PP&E>                                           5,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,739
<BONDS>                                         11,455
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           227
<OTHER-SE>                                         506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,549
<SALES>                                         19,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,110
<CGS>                                           11,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,919)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,919)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,919)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.77)
        

</TABLE>
REMA~ 

R8 §~AG 

CIRCULATE 

COORDINATION 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

NECESSARY 

ACTION 

~OTE AND 

RETURN 

SEE ME 

fdmiral Stone indicated that he wanted the conduct 

of SCAG affairs to be centralized under Capt. Harper. 

I think centralizaiiion is necessary-, for good 

administration a.ni avoidance of divided responsibilit7 

However, because of the deep interest 02 has in SCAG, 

it would be better to centralize the con:iuct of SCAG 

business under OOB, with OOT to provide such assistance as may be required by OOB. 

If' you agree 1 I suggest you get out a memo on 

subject., or zpare ;;aft. for you, 

~oved for Release by NSA on 04-15-2014 

ursuant to E.O. 13526 

TELEPHONE 

DD FORM 9 5 Roplaoes DA. A.GO Form SOil, 1 Apr 48, and A.FBQ t FEB 50 Form 12.10 Nov 4.7, which may be used.
USCIB: 3. 5/5 

REF ID:A67754 

TO.PSECRET • 

1 June 1954 

MEMORANDUM FOR 'IHE MD1BERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: 

References: 

Release to Canada of NSA Scientific Advisory Board 

Report Entitled "The Potentialities of COMINT for 

Strategic Waming". 

(a) USCIB 3.5/3, dated 4 May 1954. 

(b) USCIB 3.5/4, dated 6 May 1954. 

1. USCIBEC considered the references at its Fifteenth Meeting, 

?.4 

28 May 1954, and agreed to recommend that USCIB interpose no objection 

to the release to C&nada ot the expurgated version of the NSASAB report 

in question, subject to certain additional deletions. 

2. It was agreed, further, that individual USCIBEC members will 

notify the Executive Secretary or those additional deletions which it 

is desired that the Director, NSA, accomplish prior to release of the 

report. 

3. Notification of this action or USCIBEC is forwarded to USCIB 

in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 11 of USCIB Directive 

No. 1. In the ab15ence of objection by any member prior to 1500, 

11 June 1954, the above USCIBEC decision will be considered approved. 

USCIB: 3.5/5 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-11-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

TO:PSEORET