alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01044601.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/446 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/446

---

(2004/C 84 E/0520)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0728/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Ansaldo-Breda: possible monitoring of EU funding

Subject:

At the meeting last week in Brussels involving trade union delegations and workers from Ansaldo-Breda, it emerged that the company has benefited from assistance supporting production activities in depressed areas of Italy, as provided for in Italian Law No 488/92, in the form of EU cofinancing. Specifically, funding has been made available for work on replacing the company's roof with eternit (asbestos lumber), so as to bring the workplace up to European standards in terms of safeguarding and protecting workers.

However, it would not appear that funding was requested to provide environmental protection for the surrounding area, despite the presence of an important acquifer in the vicinity of the establishment.

In view of the above, can the Commission state:

| 1. | Whether Ansaldo-Breda has received funding and, if so, what kind? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Whether Ansaldo-Breda has received funding and, if so, what kind?

| 2. | What instruments can be adopted to check whether any funding awarded to Ansaldo-Breda has actually been used? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What instruments can be adopted to check whether any funding awarded to Ansaldo-Breda has actually been used?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

(22 April 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)
  (i)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
 (ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the
periods indicated.
 Date:  August 5, 2009
    /S/ DANA M. KELLEYDana M. KelleyVice President, Chief Financial Officer and

Treasurer
Exhibit
      10.27

    


    AMENDMENT
      TO EXECUTIVE

    EMPLOYMENT
      AGREEMENT

    


    WHEREAS,
      effective May 1, 2006, CAPITAL GOLD CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
      (“Employer”), and JOHN BROWNLIE, a Colorado resident (“Executive”), entered into
      an Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”); and

    


    WHEREAS,
      on
      July
      17, 2008, based on the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the
      Company’s Board of Directors, the Board of Directors increased the salaries of
      our executive officers;

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, to effectuate the foregoing change in salary for Executive, Employer
      and Executive agree: 

    


    1. Section
      3(a) of the Agreement is amended effective August 1, 2008 and, as amended,
      reads
      as follows:

    


    (a) Base
      Salary.
      As
      compensation for the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Employer
      agrees to pay Executive a base salary at an annual rate of not less than
      $258,750, payable in installments in accordance with Employer’s standard payroll
      practices, subject to such payroll and withholding deductions as are required
      by
      law or authorized by Executive. The amount of the base salary shall be reviewed
      periodically and may be increased at the sole discretion of Employer.


    


    2. All
      other
      terms of the Agreement remain the same.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment to the Agreement
      effective July 17, 2008. 

    


    
      	 	
              EMPLOYER
                :

            
	 	 
	 	
              CAPITAL
                GOLD CORPORATION

            
	 	 	 
	 	
              By:

            	
              s/Gifford
                A. Dieterle

            
	 	
               

            	
              Gifford
                A. Dieterle, President

            


    

    


    
      	 	
              EXECUTIVE:

            
	 	 
	 	
              s/John
                Brownlie

            
	 	
              John
                Brownlie
### Lowry, 

## Nick (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject:

Dear Mr. Silberberg: Lowry, Nick (OST) Tuesday, April16, 2013 1:57 PM Robert P. Silverberg (rsilverberg@sgbdc.com); Don Hainbach (dhaiiibach@;gghL ,,,,:, airlaw.com); Mike Borsetti (mike@borsetti.com) , , Podberesky, Samuel (OST); Graber, Kimberly (OST); Gorman>R.obe'r((OST); A/sha'a3

# 2 Amna (OST) Your letter ofApril.l1,_2.QI -- Documents filed by Mike Borsetti in DOT OST 2013-0024 ani2013-002

This is in response to your letterofAprilll, 2013, in which you state thatthree documentsfiled in Dkt OST 2013-0024 by Mike Borsetti are documents unauthorized bythe Department's procedural rules (14 CFR Part 302) and should not b-e accepted forfiling. 

### )The documents are entitled: (1) "Comr'aint and Motion tc' Join Complaint," April 

### 5, 2013; (2) "Corrnents in Support of ',DOT Investigation into American Airline.:}'' March21, 2013;,::and "Comments in Support ofDOT lnve:;tigation into

American Airlines, Inc., and British Airways Pic and Request forJoint Investigation of Immunized lntl'!gratedJointVenture

, Partners," March 21, 2013.

While you are correct in pointing outthe pleadings are not explicitly allowed underthe Department' rules, we atthe Enforcement Office have decided that we will accept them along with comments filed by members ofthe public in a related docket (DOT OST 2013-0025) in the interest of receptiveness to public comment and participation. We will accord them informal consideration in our review ofthe two dockets. As you point

### out, under rule 6(c)(3) the Department must consider matters contained in these documents as controverted and American need notanswerthe filings. Iwill place a copy ofthis e-mail in Dockets OST 2013-0024 and 2013-0025.



### Nicholas Lowry SeniorAttorney Office ofAviation Enforcement& 

### Proceedings Office ofthe General Counsel U.S. Dept. ofTransportation 202-366-9351 (ph)

1
# CE2004084EN.01060701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/607 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/607

---

(2004/C 84 E/0682)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0499/04

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Reclaiming subsidies granted for setting up industrial activity

Subject:

Amongst all the many consequences which have arisen and will continue to do so from the eastwards enlargement of the EU, the eastwards relocation of many industries from the oldest Member States is outstanding.

On occasion, the businesses now relocating had in the past received subsidies from the national or regional authorities concerned to set up business on their territory.

Does the Commission believe that it is legal and legitimate that companies which are abandoning regions from which they have received subsidy, in order to relocate in eastern Europe, should return the national or regional subsidy money when they abandon their subsidised premises?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

(22 March 2004)

The matter raised by the Honourable Member is not exclusively linked to the enlargement of the EU. Already in 1997, when it adopted the guidelines on national regional aid (1), the Commission took into consideration the necessity of striking a balance between the freedom of enterprises to decide where and when to invest in a rapidly changing environment and the stimulation of such mobile investment in assisted areas. Therefore, under point 4.10 and 4.14 of the guidelines on national regional aid, aid for initial investment and aid for job creation is conditional, through its method of payment or through the conditions associated with its acquisition, on the maintenance of the investment in question and of the employment created for a minimum period of five years. This condition is included in all regional aid schemes approved by the Commission and must be respected.

1

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

1

---
Order entered April 7, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00371-CV

IN RE JUAN MURRAY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F0055585-MR

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,985
<SECURITIES>                                   262,902
<RECEIVABLES>                                  324,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,936
<INVENTORY>                                    274,592
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               892,769
<PP&E>                                         234,288
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,259,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,160,880
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,095
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,132,437
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,259,106
<SALES>                                        398,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               398,063
<CGS>                                          344,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  378,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,534,395
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              98,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,613,163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,613,163)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,613,163)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (13)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.8  Consent of Tyson C. Birkett  I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of North American Palladium Ltd., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to my name and references to my involvement in the preparation of technical information relating to the Vezza Project, Quebec, the Sleeping Giant mine, Quebec, and the Companys other exploration properties, included in the 2011 Annual Information Form of North American Palladium Ltd., dated March 30, 2012 (the AIF).  I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-13766) and in the Registration Statement on Form F-10 (File No. 333-164512) of the references to my name and the above-mentioned information in the AIF.  Dated this 30 day of March, 2012.   Name:
/s/   Tyson C. BirkettTyson C. Birkett
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1707 

To designate the Federal building located at 617 Walnut Street in Helena, 

Arkansas, as the ‘‘Jacob Trieber Federal Building, United States Post 

Office, and United States Court House’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 7, 2015 

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Mr. COTTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 617 Walnut 

Street in Helena, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Jacob Trieber Federal Building, United States Post Office, and United 

States Court House’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JACOB TRIEBER FEDERAL BUILDING, UNITED 

4 STATES POST OFFICE, AND UNITED STATES 

5 COURT HOUSE. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at 

7 617 Walnut Street in Helena, Arkansas, shall be known 

8 and designated as the ‘‘Jacob Trieber Federal Building, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1707 IS

1 United States Post Office, and United States Court 

2 House’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection 

6 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jacob 

7 Trieber Federal Building, United States Post Office, and 

8 United States Court House’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 48628]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11au10-26]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0170; FRL-9186-3]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve revisions to the Missouri State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state on June 17, 2009. The 
purpose of these revisions is to rescind the rule More Restrictive 
Emission Limitations for Particulate Matter in South St. Louis Area and 
to approve revisions to the rule Restriction of Emission of Particulate 
Matter from Industrial Processes which makes corrections and 
clarifications, and adds exemptions to the rule. EPA is proposing 
approval of the SIP provisions pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
September 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2010-0170, by mail to Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, 
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may also be submitted 
electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the 
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule 
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bhesania at (913) 551-7147, or by 
e-mail at bhesania.amy@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal 
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final 
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse 
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set 
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are 
received in response to this action, no further activity is 
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant 
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this 
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives 
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of 
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional 
information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules 
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 21, 2010.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2010-19570 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1567 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for a review of the 

characterization or terms of discharge from the Armed Forces of individuals with mental health disorders alleged to affect terms of discharge. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2015 

Mr. PETERS (for himself, Mr. DAINES, and Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for a 

review of the characterization or terms of discharge from 

the Armed Forces of individuals with mental health disorders alleged to affect terms of discharge. 

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


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1567 IS

1 SECTION 1. REVIEW OF CHARACTERIZATION OR TERMS OF 

2 DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMED FORCES OF 

3 INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL HEALTH DIS4 ORDERS ALLEGED TO AFFECT TERMS OF DIS5 CHARGE. 

6 Section 1553(d) of title 10, United States Code, is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following new para8 graph: 

9 ‘‘(3)(A) In addition to the requirements of para10 graphs (1) and (2), in the case of a former member de11 scribed in subparagraph (B), the board shall— 

12 ‘‘(i) review medical evidence of the Secretary of 

13 Veterans Affairs or a civilian health care provider 

14 that is presented by the former member; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) review the case with a rebuttable presump16 tion in favor of the former member that post-trau17 matic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury ma18 terially contributed to the circumstances resulting in 

19 the discharge of a lesser characterization. 

20 ‘‘(B) A former member described in this subpara21 graph is a former member described in paragraph (1) or 

22 a former member whose application for relief is based in 

23 whole or in part on matters relating to post-traumatic 

24 stress disorder or traumatic brain injury as supporting ra25 tionale or as justification for priority consideration whose 

26 post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1567 IS

1 is related to combat or military sexual trauma, as deter2 mined by the Secretary concerned.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      30,109,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,254,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,368,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,182,000
<PP&E>                                      27,262,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,340,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             133,207,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,457,000
<BONDS>                                     70,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       842,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,198,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               133,207,000
<SALES>                                     18,854,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,854,000
<CGS>                                        1,588,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,080,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,473,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,301,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,301,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,301,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
1 John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of A pp ea ls , s itti ng by

as si gn men t. T ex. Gov ’t Code Ann. § 75.00 2(a)( 1) (Ver non Su pp. 20 02). NO. 07-02-0241 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L E SEPTE MBE R 11, 2002

______________________________ JUSTIN JAY SHEP HERD, Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 47 TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUN TY; NO. 44331-A; HON. DAVID GLEASON, PRES IDING

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, SJ. 1 Pending before the court is Justin Jay She pherd’s (appellant) motion for extens ion of tim e tofile his brief. Accom panying the m otion was the brief itself. W e grant the m otion and file the brief as of

the date received. How ever, we dismiss the appeal for the want of jurisdiction. Pursuant to a plea agreem ent, appellant was conv icted of burglar y of a habitation wi th inte nt to co m m it an oth er f elon y. The pun ishm ent ass ess ed b y th e co urt did no t2

exceed theterm s of

the plea bargain. Thereafter, appellant filed a pro se general notice of appeal wherein he stated that he was “ignorant” of the law and “w as m isrepresented by counsel.” Om itted from the not ice, how

ever, was e ither the s tatem ent tha t the court granted permission to appeal, th at the substance of the appeal involved m atters raised by written m otion befo re trial, or that the appeal “is for jurisdictional defects” as required by Texas Rul e of

Appella te Procedure 25.2( b)(3). Nor di d the appel lant’s subsequ ent notice of appeal contain like statements . Consequently, w e lack jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, Cooper v. Stat e , 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex . Crim . App. 2001), and dismiss t he appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

Pe r C ur i am

Do Not Publish.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 16, 2009

jm 

# Order

June 16, 2009

138806

MICHAEL DEWAYNE SMITH

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138806
CoA: 289392

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Justice, plai ntiff-appellant having failed to pay the partial filing fee as required by the order of May 5, 2009, the Clerk of the Court is hereby
directed to close this file.