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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7032 

To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 

to provide the Congressional Budget Office with necessary authorities 

to expedite the sharing of data from executive branch agencies, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2024 

Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. ARRINGTON) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide the Congressional Budget 

Office with necessary authorities to expedite the sharing 

of data from executive branch agencies, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Congressional Budget 

5 Office Data Sharing Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7032 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUESTS BY CBO OF INFORMATION FROM EXECU2 TIVE AGENCIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 201(d) of the Congres4 sional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 

5 U.S.C. 601(d)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘The Director is authorized’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘(1) The Director is authorized’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘(other than material the disclo9 sure of which would be a violation of law)’’ and in10 serting ‘‘(with or without written agreement) pro11 vided that the Director maintains the level of con12 fidentiality required by law of the department, agen13 cy, establishment, or regulatory agency or commis14 sion from which it is obtained in accordance with 

15 section 203(e)’’; and 

16 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(2) No provision of law enacted after the date of 

18 the enactment of the Congressional Budget Office Data 

19 Sharing Act shall be construed to supersede, limit, or oth20 erwise modify the authority of the Director to obtain any 

21 material under this subsection unless such provision spe22 cifically provides, by specific reference to this paragraph, 

23 that such authority is to be superseded, limited, or other24 wise modified.’’. 

25 (b) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date 

26 of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the CongresVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:13 Jan 29, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7032.IH H7032

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7032 IH

1 sional Budget Office shall submit, to the chairs of the 

2 Committees on the Budget of the House of Representa3 tives and the Senate, a report listing any request for infor4 mation pursuant to a written agreement under section 

5 201(d) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 

6 Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601(d)), as amended by 

7 subsection (a) of this Act, made to any department, agen8 cy, or establishment of the executive branch of Govern9 ment or any regulatory agency or commission of the Gov10 ernment and any challenges faced accessing information 

11 under such section. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
---

| | KPMG LLP                           | Telephone | (604) 691-3000
| | ---------------------------------- | --------- | --------------
| | Chartered Professional Accountants | Fax       | (604) 691-3031
| | PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street   | Internet  | www.kpmg.ca   
| | Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3               |           |               
| | Canada                             |           |               



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors of Asanko Gold Inc.



We consent to the use of our reports, each dated March 15, 2017
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting included in this annual report on Form
40-F.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Chartered Professional Accountants

March 15, 2017 Vancouver, Canada

KPMG LLP is a Canadian
limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of
independentmember firms affiliated with KPMG
International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity.KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.

---
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

 

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Grupo Aeroportuario del Centro Norte, S.A.B. de C.V. (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: April 28, 2017 |   | By:                                       | /s/Porfirio González Álvarez |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                       |   |                                      |                                   |
|                       |   | Name: Porfirio González Álvarez |
|                       |   |                                      |
|                       |   | Title: Chief Executive Officer            |
|                       |   |                                      |
|                       |   |                                      |
| Dated: April 28, 2017 |   | By:                                       | /s/Vicsaly Torres Ruiz                 |
|                       |   |                                      |                                   |
|                       |   | Name: Vicsaly Torres Ruiz                 |
|                       |   |                                      |
|                       |   | Title: Chief Financial Officer            |

 

----
---

EXHIBIT 99.10

VIA EDGAR

|TO: | United States Securities and
      Exchange Commission
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                       
|Re: | Asanko Gold Inc. (the
      "Company")                
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                            
|    | Consent of Expert                                     

This consent is provided in connection with the Company's
annual report on Form 40-F for the financial year ended December 31, 2016, and
any amendments thereto (the Annual Report), as filed by the Company
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Annual Report
incorporates by reference, among other things, the Companys Annual Information
Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2016 (the Annual Information
Form).

I, Glenn Bezuidenhout, DO HEREBY CONSENT, to:

- the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation
  of information that forms the basis for disclosure of a technical and
  scientific nature related to the Companys Asanko Gold Mine, contained in the
  Annual Information Form; and
- the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the
  Annual Report.



Dated March 15, 2017



|/s/ Glenn
      Bezuidenhout                     | 
|------------------------------------------------ | 
|Glenn Bezuidenhout                               | 
|National Diploma (Extractive Metallurgy), FSIAMM | 
|DRA Mineral Projects (Pty) Ltd                   | 

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6774 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish special rules 

relating to which professional sports leagues qualify to be exempt from 

taxation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself and Mr. BUCHANAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish 

special rules relating to which professional sports leagues 

qualify to be exempt from taxation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL 

4 SPORTS LEAGUES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 501 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(s) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL

9 SPORTS LEAGUES.—No organization shall be treated as 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6774 IH

1 described in subsection (c)(6) for any taxable year if such 

2 organization or entity— 

3 ‘‘(1) is a professional sports league, organiza4 tion, or association, a substantial activity of which is 

5 to foster national or international professional sports 

6 competitions (including by managing league business 

7 affairs, officiating or providing referees, coordinating 

8 schedules, managing sponsorships or broadcast sales, 

9 operating loan programs for competition facilities, or 

10 overseeing player conduct), and 

11 ‘‘(2) has annual gross receipts in excess of 

12 $1,000,000,000 during any of the 5 preceding tax13 able years.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 December 31, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Company's 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             41
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                       40
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              5
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  4,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                         2,366
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    4,290
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  212
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      48
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   13
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   35
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     5
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 3
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        3
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
#### Margaret Lucy GAUTHIER, Appellant, v. DOONAN, GRAVES & LONGORIA LLC; et al., Appellees.

No. 15-17500

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Margaret Lucy Gauthier, Pro Se

Joshua Scheer, Scheer Law Group, LLP, San Rafael, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Doonan, Graves <& Longoria LLC

Darren John Devlin, The Mortgage Law Firm, PLC, Temecula, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Seterus, Inc.

Leslie Marie Klott, Attorney, Benjamin David Petiprin, Zieve, Brodnax *&*Steele, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Margaret Lucy Gauthier appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion for contempt against appellees for alleged violations of the discharge injunction, We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court, and apply the same standard of review the district court applied to the bankruptcy court’s decision. *Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.),*912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gauthier’s motion for contempt because Gauthier failed to demonstrate that appellees violated the discharge injunction by pursuing *in rein*proceedings. *See Diaz-Barba v. Diaz-Barba, (In re Icenhower),*755 F.3d 1130, 1138 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review); *Renwick v. Bennett (In re Bennett),*298 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2002) (moving party has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the con-temnor violated a specific and definite order of the court); *see also Johnson v. Home State Bank,*501 U.S. 78, 84, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991) (a dis*965charge injunction extinguishes only personal liability and leaves intact an action against the debtor *in rem).*

We reject as without merit Gauthier’s contention regarding the district court’s judicial notice of documents filed in the bankruptcy court proceeding.

Gauthier’s requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 29, 30, and 34) are denied. To the extent that these filings include arguments not raised in the opening brief, such arguments are deemed waived. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Appellee Doonan, Graves *&*Longoria LLC’s (“DG & L”) request to “strike the appeal,” set forth in its answering brief, is denied. Gauthier’s request to strike DG *& L’s*answering brief, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CHIREX INC.'S SECOND
QUARTER 1998 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,361
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,188
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,802
<PP&E>                                         155,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,087
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,230
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,230
<SALES>                                         51,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,212
<CGS>                                           40,758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   582
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,829
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (741)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       254
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (487)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TERESA A. MCVICKER, P.C.,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN MCHUGH, Secretary of the Army,

Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-1125

______________________ 

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract 

Appeals in No. 57653, Administrative Judge Jack Delman.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

RALPH C. THOMAS, III, Barton, Baker, Thomas & 

Tolle, LLP, of McLean, Virginia, argued for appellant. 

DOMENIQUE KIRCHNER, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for 

appellee. With her on the brief were Stuart F. DELERY, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E.
 

DAVIDSON, Director, and MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

July 17, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk
# EUR-Lex - 32001R2494 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R2494

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2494/2001 of 19 December 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 80/2001 as regards the options for disposing of fishery products withdrawn from the market **

*
Official Journal L 337 , 20/12/2001 P. 0022 - 0022 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2494/2001

of 19 December 2001

amending Regulation (EC) No 80/2001 as regards the options for disposing of fishery products withdrawn from the market

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products(1), and in particular Article 34(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 80/2001 of 16 January 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards notifications concerning recognition of producer organisations, the fixing of prices and intervention within the scope of the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products(2), Member States notify the Commission, for each product withdrawn from the market, of the value and quantities disposed of, broken down by the disposal options set out in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1501/83(3).

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 1501/83 has been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EC) No 2493/2001(4) which increases the number of disposal options available.

(3) Regulation (EC) No 80/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Table 9 in Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 80/2001 is replaced by the following:

"TABLE 9

Use of withdrawals

>TABLE>"

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 January 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22.

(2) OJ L 13, 17.1.2001, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 152, 10.6.1983, p. 22.

(4) See page 20 of this Official Journal.
From: "Higgins, Cortney" < Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov >

To: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/29/2012 08:58 AM

Subject: RE: Portland Cement Reconsideration

-- Interagency comments under EO 13563

Here’s the attachment.

From: Higgins, Cortney

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 3:30 PM

To: Nizich.Sharon@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov ; Charlotte Bertrand

( Bertrand.Charlotte@epamail.epa.gov )

Subject: Portland Cement Reconsideration

-- Intera gency comments under EO 13563

Hi Sharon,

Attached is a redline of the preamble with interagency questions and comments. Please let me know if

you have any questions.

We are available for a call to discuss these comments at the following times next week:

5/29: noon

- 3

5/30: 10

- 11, 1

- 3, 3:30

- 6

Thanks,

Cortney

________________________________________________ Cortney Higgins

Policy Analyst

OMB/OIRA/NRE

202.395.7856

chiggins@omb.eop.gov

(See attached file: EO_12866 _NESHAP_FOR_THE_PORTLAND_CEMENT_S_2060

- AQ93_20120503

InteragencyCommentsunderEO13563.docx)
#### Patrick CHRISTIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1267

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Patrick O. Christian, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Christian appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Christian v. City of Richmond,*No. 3:16-cv-00902-MHL (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the'facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *787this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*