alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01028101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/281 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/281

---

(2004/C 84 E/0327)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3996/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   New work methods and development of e-commerce

Subject:

The key action relating to the creation of new work methods and the development of e-commerce provided for under the fifth framework programme for research included a number of calls for proposals for the period 1999-2001.

Can the Commission state how many such calls were published, with the names of the successful candidates and the sums allocated to each project approved? Has action been taken to verify the success of the actions?

Answer given by Mr. Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

(17 February 2004)

During the period indicated (1999-2001), there were nine calls for proposal related to key action II: new working methods and development of electronic commerce.

The information related to the projects resulting from these calls can be found on the Cordis website (1), where it is possible to carry out research by key action, by country, by contract type and by partner type.

1

Another address (2) provides access to another document giving an overview of the activities of key action II during the period concerned.

2

The impact assessment of the activities of the Information Society Technologies (IST) taken as a whole, including the key action II, is underway and the corresponding report will be available at the end of April 2004 in a preliminary form and at the end of October 2004 in the final version.

---

(1)  http://www.cordis.lu/ist/projects/projects.htm

1

(2)  http://www.cordis.lu/ist/ka2/report.htm#ar2001

2

---
SERVED: NOVEMBER 14,2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0782 

.

',ifi\7 

{, ~= f ·~ 

ORDER SETTING OUT BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

I Lt 

The parties have agreed on the following Post Hearing Briefing Schedule, which is 

hereby established: 

1. The Post-Hearing Brief of Complainant Federal Aviation Administration shall 

be filed on or before January 10, 2013; 

2. The Post-Hearing Brief of Respondent SkyWest Airlines shall be filed on or 

before February 14, 2013; and 

3. The Rebuttal Brief of the Federal Aviation Administration, if any, shall be 

filed on or before March 6, 2013. 
2 

p;~C,~ Richard C. Goodwin $ 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
3 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Counsel 

Director - Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWest Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX 435-634-3505 

ONE COPY 

Kyle E. Lomazow, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0782 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
<TABLE>
                                                       EXHIBIT 11

                           BAIRNCO CORPORATION
           CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
         FOR THE QUARTERS ENDED APRIL 3, 1999 AND APRIL 4, 1998
                               (Unaudited)
<CAPTION>

                                              1999             1998
<S>                                           <C>              <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:

Net income                                    $ 2,270,000      $ 2,196,000

Average common shares outstanding               8,165,000        8,896,000

Basic Earnings Per Common Share               $      0.28      $      0.25


DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:

Net income                                    $ 2,270,000      $ 2,196,000

Average common shares outstanding               8,165,000        8,896,000
Common shares issuable in respect to 
 options issued to employees with a
 dilutive effect                                   22,000          274,000
Total diluted common shares outstanding         8,187,000        9,170,000

Diluted Earnings Per Common Share             $      0.28      $      0.24
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32



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 Annual Report of AVAX Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard P. Rainey, President (as such, the principal executive officer and principal accounting officer) 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 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.






/s/ Richard P. RaineyRichard P. RaineyPresident(Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer)May 9, 2007






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

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

The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior United States Circuit Judge **

for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BIN BIN YANG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-70104

Agency No. A095-708-276

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted November 6, 2009 

Pasadena, California

Before: BRIGHT, BYBEE, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. ** 

 Bin Bin Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision to

FILED

DEC 01 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on the basis of adverse credibility

determinations. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. After reviewing the

factual findings for substantial evidence, see Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100,

1105 (9th Cir. 2006), we deny the petition for review. 

The record does not compel reversal of the adverse credibility

determinations because Yang testified inconsistently regarding his claim that

family planning authorities attempted to force his fiancée to undergo an abortion. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (providing that under the REAL ID Act, an

immigration judge may base a credibility determination on the consistency of the

applicant’s statements, regardless of whether it goes to the heart of the applicant’s

claim); Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005) (inconsistencies

deprive an applicant’s testimony of the requisite “ring of truth”). The record also

establishes that Yang did not provide a credible explanation for why he failed to

provide documentary evidence in support of his claim. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d

1085, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that an immigration judge could determine

that an applicant’s explanation for a lack of corroboration was not credible). 

In the absence of credible testimony, Yang failed to demonstrate eligibility

for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
3

(9th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, because Yang’s CAT claim relies on the same

evidence the immigration judge found not credible, and he does not point to

additional evidence to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if

he returned to China, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
~-· 

REF ID': Jr5l3238 e 

24 

USCIB: 7./JJJ 

16 July 1954 

MEMCRAND'(J)( FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Approval of USCIB 7./8 dated 6 July 1954. 

No objection having been received during the interregnum period, 

subject paper together \ti.th the references therein stands approved. 

USCIB: 7./10 

aptain, u. s. Navy ecutive Secretary, USCIB 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 05-27-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
# Tenakee Springs Business Association PO Box 581 Tenakee Springs, 

### AK 99841 www.tenakeespringsak.com

Mr. Todd Homan Director, Office ofAviation Analysis US Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590
Dear Mr. Homan; October24, 2014

Please accept this letter ofsupport for Alaska Seaplanes' proposal to continue providing Essential Air Service between Juneau andTenakee Springs for another4-yearterm.
The Tenakee Springs Business Association (TSBA) is a community based organization and collaboration of business owners, land owners, artists, musicians, fishermen, school board members, and religbus organizations. The TSBA is comprised of 15 businesses holding general membership and four**a~sociate** members.

. . As a remote Alaska communitywith no road access and limited ferry service, we rely tremendously on Alaska Seaplanes' scheduled service to provide a critical link to Juneau for medical care, emergencyservices, groceries andsupplies, and connections to Alaska Airlines and Delta Airlines flights to Anchorqge, the lower48 and beyond. Alaska Seaplanes has terrific local customerservice agents here in Tenakee who haveyears of experience ensuring our community gets the attention and prioritywe need. · Alaska Seaplanes has responded to that demand, by adding an additional aircraft in recent years, making less expensive fares available through online booking, developing a mobile website for easier reservations, and upgrading the quality oftheir aircraftwith newseats and interiorsjust this year. Their scheduled frequency-to Juneau (notSitka)-is crucial to maintaining Tenakee's economic health, and must be preserved in the next four-year EAS term, without reduction. Seaplanes has contributed consistently overtheyears to local philanthropic activities and they are a staple of our community andwonderful community partner. Further, Seaplanes has taken a leadership role in supporting economic deveJopment by partnering with .the City on obtaining a Small Commu.nity Air Service Development grantwhich is helping us market our local tourism businesses in Tenakee·qndbeyond. · We are very excited thot Alaska Seaplanes' new EAS proposal includes the addition of an IFRcapable Cessna Caravan on amphibious floats. This is a very wise investment in Tenakee's air service, as itwill provide greatercapacitywhen we need,it and lessen the frequency of weathercancelationswhen Juneau airportvisibility conditions preventVFR flights from departing the pond.Finally, Alaska Seaplanes has an unparalleled safety record, with 17 years of incident and accidentfree flying-a record that speaks to the care and responsible approach they bring to everyflight.
Please acceptAlaska Seaplanes' proposal for a new 4-yearterm serving Tenakee Springs.

# q;;:l~ \.k Tuck Harry, President 

# V Tenakee Springs Business Association
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 11413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04272]


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

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS


Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 
for 19 March 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in the Commission offices at the 
National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street 
NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include 
buildings, parks and memorials.
    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission 
are available on our Web site: www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the 
agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be 
addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at 
the above address; by emailing <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#710205101717311217105f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfacabbeb9b99fbcb9bef1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>; or by calling 202-504-
2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the 
hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before 
the meeting date.

    Dated: February 24, 2015, in Washington, DC.
Thomas Luebke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-04272 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1678 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

201 B Street in Perryville, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Harold George Bennett 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 25, 2015 

Mr. BOOZMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 201 B Street in Perryville, Arkansas, as the 

‘‘Harold George Bennett Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HAROLD GEORGE BENNETT POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 201 B Street in Perryville, Ar6 kansas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Harold 

7 George Bennett Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1678 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Harold George Ben3 nett Post Office’’. 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 10660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04107]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary

Reestablishment of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 
21st Century Agriculture

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Agriculture intends to reestablish the 
Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) 
for a two-year period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions should be addressed to 
Michael Schechtman, Designated Federal Official, telephone (202) 720-
3817; fax (202) 690-4265; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Advisory Committee Purpose: USDA supports 
the responsible development and application of biotechnology within the 
global food and agricultural system. Biotechnology intersects many of 
the policies, programs, and functions of USDA. The charge for the AC21 
is two-fold: To examine the long-term impacts of biotechnology on the 
U.S. food and agriculture system and USDA; and to provide guidance to 
USDA on pressing individual issues, identified by the Office of the 
Secretary, related to the application of biotechnology in agriculture. 
The AC21 will meet in Washington, DC, up to four (4) times per year.

    Done at Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2015.
Catherine E. Woteki,
Under Secretary, REE, Chief Scientist, USDA.
[FR Doc. 2015-04107 Filed 2-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
```
1 I ....... _ ... """' 

'i'OP SEieRE'f = e.a. EHS 6MLY 

SUBJECT NUMBER 

USCIB: 9.2/14 

Subject: 

Item 6 of the Agenda for the 109th Meeting of USOIB, 

held on 12 November 1954. 

OOMINT Capability Against Chinese Communist Communications (USCIB 9.2/8; 9.2/9). 

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN (General Cabell) invited comments by Mr. 

Armstrong on the Memo contained in USCIB 9. 2/9. 

MR. ARMSTRONG said that he believes the memorandum to be selfex:pla.natory; however, he explained that his Department wishes to 

recommend against the forwarding of the memorandum {USCIB 9 .2/8) to the 

Special Committee at this time. 

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN pointed out that the Memo f'or the Special 

Committee was originally intended as a pressure device and that 

apparently the need for such pressure has since subsided. 

ADMIRAL ESPE asked if we now know that the CHINATS are more amenable than they were. 

MR. ARMSTRONG re lied that th amenable on base 

rights He 

added that they were most prompt in assenting to the entry of the USAF 

Mobile Unit. He said that he could not think of an instance in which 

they are not cooperating and until such occurs there seems to be little 

use in going to the Special Committee. 

USCIB: 9. 2/14 - 16 - EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 03-20-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

ro:P BECH-ET 
' , 

.... • 

!OP SEi0R:l!R' = B. S • EiYBS ONI:.¥ 

USCIB: 9 .2/14 

e EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL86-36/50 USC 3605 

DECISION: (12 November 1954) USCIB agreed not to forward, at this time, 

the proposed memorandum for the Special Committee (enclosure with 

USCIB 9.2/8). 

It was agreed, further, that: 

( 2) USCIBEC recommendations on theO report will be considered by 

USCIB at its December meeting. 

This item to remain on the agenda. 

The meeting adjourned at 1830. 

USCIB: 9 , 2/14 - 17 -

TOP 8ECfE1'
99-1298.

#### Hill v. Anderson.

In Habeas Corpus. On request for immediate hearing. Request denied.
[English
      Translation]

     

    Strategic
      Partnership Agreement

     

    Party
      A:
      Beijing Xin’ao Concrete Co., Ltd (the Xin’ao)

     

    Party
      B:
      Shangdi Xingda Co., Ltd (the Xingda)

     

    In
      accordance with the purpose of strengthening both parties’ competitiveness and
      area benefit, Xin’ao and Xing’da agree to jointly set up a strategic partnership
      from the day of January 1, 2008. 

     

    1.
      This
      partnership in concrete industry begins from January 1, 2008. The partnership
      embodies raw material providing and conformity of concrete market aiming at
      increasing both parties’ benefit.

     

    2.
      Both
      parties shall transfer the project which does not belong to one’s service radius
      to the other party or assist the other party in conclusion of the contract.
      The
      beneficiary (party) shall pay certain amount of money on the basic of project
      quantity and benefit but no less than RMB5yuan per square.

     

    3.
      If one
      party’s equipments leave unused in a certain period, the other party has the
      priority to use at 75% of market price.

     

    4.
      During
      the process of bidding, under the precondition of compliance with the laws,
      both
      parties shall provide co-operation service to each other for free. 

     

    5.
      Strategic partnership mechanism. In order to push the strategic co-operation
      effectively, both parties agree:

     

    
      	 	
              i.

            	
              Both
                parties will hold a top executive meeting every 90 days to solve
                the
                problem during co-operation.

            


      	 	 	 


    

    
      	 	
              ii.

            	
              The
                people who in charge of operating, producing and other relevant parts
                in
                both parties will have a marketing co-ordination meeting every 30
                days to
                solve the problem during co-operation.

            


      	 	 	 


    

    
      	 	
              iii.

            	
              Both
                parties will assign a person who is in charge of daily communication
                respectively.

            


    

     

    6.
      Any
      issues which have not been included will be recorded in “Meeting Minutes” after
      both parties sign. If both parties meet any important issues, a complementary
      agreement should be concluded. The “Meeting Minutes” and the complementary
      agreement have the same legal valid. 

     

    Attachments
      are copies of business licenses of both parties.

     

    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    


                         Party
      A:                                                                                             Party
      B:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

MEDGAR SAMUEL , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1673

[ December 7, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 50 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Samantha Schosberg Feuer
, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2007

- CF

- 005216

- AXXX

- MB

.
Medgar Samuel, Lake City, pro se

.
No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

T

AYLOR , L EVINE and C ONNER , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.