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

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 13874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05822]

[[Page 13874]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eighteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (223) Internet 
Protocol Suite (IPS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Eighteenth RTCA Special Committee 223 Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
Eighteenth RTCA Special Committee 223 Meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 26-28, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0662.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or 
Jennifer Iversen, Program Director, RTCA, Inc., jiversen@rtca.org, 
(202) 330-0662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 223. The agenda 
will include the following:

Tuesday-Thursday, April 26-28, 2016

1. Welcome, Introductions, Administrative Remarks
2. Review RTCA Process Presentation
3. Review of the updated SC-223 Terms of Reference
4. Review of current State of Industry Standards
    a. ICAO WG-I
    b. AEEC IPS Sub Committee
5. Current State of Industry Activities
    a. SESAR Programs
    b. ESA IRIS Precursor
    c. Other
6. Develop Work Plan for SC-223
    a. Dependencies on other RTCA Special Committees
    b. Safety/Hazard Assessment Need
    c. Prioritized Action Plan
    d. Special Committee Structure
7. IPS Technical Discussions
8. Any Other Topics of Interest
9. Plans for Next Meetings

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be 
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain 
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a 
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services 
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-05822 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4227

JOSEPH BULLOCK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-98-133)

Submitted: October 17, 2002

Decided: October 29, 2002

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Craig W. Sampson, LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG W. SAMPSON, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Cornell Wallace, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Joseph Bullock appeals the district court’s order on remand granting specific performance as the remedy for the United States’ breach

of its plea agreement with him. In a brief filed by counsel pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),* Bullock argues the district court should have deferred to his preference of rescission in

selecting a remedy. We disagree. 

Bullock contends the concurring opinions in Santobello v. New

York, 404 U.S. 257, 263 (1971), indicate a district court should consider the defendant’s preference in selecting a remedy for a breach of

a plea agreement. Based on our review of the record and the relevant

case law, however, we find this contention unpersuasive. Courts consistently confer upon district courts unfettered discretion in selecting

a remedy for a breach of a plea agreement. See, e.g., United States v.

Jureidini, 846 F.2d 964, 965-66 (4th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, we find

the timing and context of Bullock’s request to vacate his plea agreement attenuates his reliance on those concurring opinions. See Santobello, 404 U.S. at 267, 268. Nor do we find other error in the district

court’s finding that Bullock was entitled only to specific performance

of his plea agreement. 

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with

the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting specific performance. 

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

*Bullock was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,

but he has not done so. 

2 UNITED STATES v. BULLOCK
review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. BULLOCK 3
Grace River Ranch, L /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 20, 2015

No. 04-15-00127-CV

EL CABALLERO RANCH, INC, et al,

Appellant

v.

GRACE RIVER RANCH, L.L.C.,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-04-00108-CVL

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

After due consideration of appellee’s response to appellants’ “Motion for Emergency 

Stay of Temporary Injunction Challenged in Interlocutory Appeal,” the court’s March 12, 2015 

order staying enforcement of the injunctive relief granted in the trial court’s “Partial Summary 

Judgment” order signed on March 3, 2015 will remain in effect pending resolution of the appeal 

or further order of the court.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00752-CR

David Jacob Garcia, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 05-1075-K277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant David Jacob Garcia guilty of aggravated assault (count one),

unlawful possession of a firearm (count two), and tampering with physical evidence (counts three,

four, and five). See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 22.02, 46.04 (West Supp. 2006), § 37.09 (West 2003).

After finding that appellant had a previous felony conviction, the jury assessed a prison term of sixty

years for the assault, ten years for the firearm possession, and twenty years for each of the tempering

counts.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
2

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to

examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: December 21, 2006

Do Not Publish
409PA15

#### Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle

Russell Walker’s *Pro Se*Motion for Leave to Pile *Amicus*Brief (COA15-169)

Denied 09/01/2016
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2019028EN.01001001.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 23.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/10 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9126 — MHI/Danfoss/AIP)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 28/05)

1.

On 16 January 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019028EN.01001001-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd (Japan), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Danfoss A/S (Denmark). |

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd (‘MHI’) and Danfoss A/S (‘Danfoss’) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Artemis Intelligent Power Limited (‘AIP’), a company based in Edinburgh, United Kingdom, currently controlled by MHI and active in the provision of technology associated with Digital Displacement hydraulics.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for MHI: an international supplier of heavy industrial machinery, headquartered in Tokyo,

—   for Danfoss: a supplier of products and services in areas such as mobile hydraulics, cooling and heating, headquartered in Nordborg.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019028EN.01001001-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9126 — MHI/Danfoss/AIP

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2019028EN.01001001-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2019028EN.01001001-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
II 

Calendar No. 232 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1059 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 15, 2011 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, with an amendment 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

AN ACT 

To protect the safety of judges by extending the authority 

of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information 

contained in their financial disclosure reports, 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. EXTENSION OF REDACTION AUTHORITY CON4 CERNING SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMA5 TION. 

6 Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act 

7 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1059 RS

1 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘Mar2 shall’’ and inserting ‘‘Marshals’’; and 

3 (2) by striking subparagraph (E). 

4 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘Marshall’’ 

5 and inserting ‘‘Marshals’’; 

6 (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘‘and the 

7 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Gov8 ernmental Affairs and the House Committee on Over9 sight and Government Reform’’ after ‘‘Senate’’; and 

10 (3) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘2011’’ 

11 both places it appears and inserting ‘‘2017’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 232 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1059 

AN ACT 

To protect the safety of judges by extending the auclosure reports, and for other purposes. sitive information contained in their financial dis- thority of the Judicial Conference to redact senNOVEMBER 15, 2011 

Reported with an amendment 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2019121EN.01000401.xml

| 1.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/4

---

Opinion of the advisory committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 12 December 2018 concerning a draft decision in case AT.39849(2) BEH Gas

Rapporteur: Lithuania

(2019/C 121/04)

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on BEH, Bulgargaz and Bulgartransgaz.

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the duration of the infringement to be taken into account for the calculation of the basic amount of the fine.

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to be taken into account.

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.

5.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---
**Exhibit 31.3**
****Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934****

I, Gary J. Wolter, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Madison Gas and Electric Company;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; 

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e),for the registrant and have:

	a.	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

	b.	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report for conclusions about the effectiveness of the registrant'sdisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation;

	c.	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant's internalcontrol over financial reporting;

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

	a.	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial; and

	b.	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ Gary J. Wolter
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer        August 14, 2003
IA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 3 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to parental rights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. FLEMING introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to parental rights. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HJ 3 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The liberty of parents to direct the up3 bringing and education of their children is a fundamental 

4 right. 

5 ‘‘SECTION 2. Neither the United States nor any State 

6 shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that 

7 its governmental interest as applied to the person is of 

8 the highest order and not otherwise served. 

9 ‘‘SECTION 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any 

10 source of international law be employed to supersede, mod11 ify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this 

12 article.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 77 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19873-19874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10689]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Part 75


Self-Rescue Devices; Use and Location Requirements

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, (MSHA) Labor.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: Due to requests from the mining community, MSHA is extending 
the comment period on its draft policy letter (PPL) relating to the 
approval guidelines for storage plans for Self-Contained Self-Rescue 
(SCSR) Devices in underground coal mines.

DATES: Submit all comments on or before May 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be transmitted by electronic mail, fax or mail. 
Comments by electronic mail must be clearly identified as such and sent 
to this e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b6d5d9dbdbd3d8c2c5f6dbc5ded798d1d9c0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="33505c5e5e565d4740735e405b521d545c45">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments by fax must be 
clearly identified as such and sent to: Mine Safety and Health 
Administration, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, 703-
235-5551. Send mail comments to: Mine Safety and Health Administration, 
Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances, Room 631, 4015 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1984. Interested persons are 
encouraged to supplement written comments with computer files or disks; 
please contact the Agency with any questions about format.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Milton D. Conley, Division of Health, 
Coal Mine Safety and Health, (703) 235-1358.


[[Page 19874]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 26, 1997, (62 FR 50541), MSHA 
published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comments on a 
draft policy letter (PPL) relating to the approval guidelines for 
storage plans for Self-Contained Self-Rescue (SCSR) Devices in 
underground coal mines. MSHA published the notice to voluntarily afford 
an opportunity for interested persons to comment on the PPL before its 
anticipated issuance and effective date.
    The comment period was scheduled to close on February 23, 1998; but 
was extended until April 13, 1998 (63 FR 6886). In response to requests 
from the mining community for additional time to prepare their 
comments, MSHA is extending the comment period until May 29, 1998.
    The Agency believes that this extension will provide sufficient 
time for all interested parties to review and comment on the draft 
policy. All interested parties are encouraged to submit their comments 
on or prior to May 29, 1998.

    Dated: April 16, 1998.
J. Davitt McAteer,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 98-10689 Filed 4-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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)
 Company
 1.
    
    The accompanying Report of the Company on
Form 20-F (the  Report )
fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 Date: June 23, 2009
    /s/ Jorge Horacio BritoName:
    Jorge Horacio BritoTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 135 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.135
                                        Agreed to August 2, 2012        

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR PRESENTATION OF CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL 
              TO DAW AUNG SAN SUU KYI.

    The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on September 
19, 2012, for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to Daw 
Aung San Suu Kyi, in recognition of her leadership and perseverance in 
the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma. Physical preparations 
for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such 
conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```