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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2447

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel LADY HAWK.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 21 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

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

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel

LADY HAWK.

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

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

4 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer5 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica6 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

7 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

8 for the vessel LADY HAWK, United States official num9 ber 961095.

Æ
Exhibit 15.5




CONSENT




We hereby consent to the reference to our “valuation of Interest rate swap transaction (IRS) of Plaza Centers N.V.” in respect of Series B debentures as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elbit Imaging Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2009 and to the incorporation by reference of this Annual Report in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852, No. 333-136684 and No. 333-152820) filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd. and in the Shelf Prospectus filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd. with the Israeli Securities Authority and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange on July 21, 2009.




This consent is not to be construed as an admission that we are an expert or that we are a person whose consent is required to be filed with the Annual Report under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.




/s/Financial ImmunitiesLtd.

Financial Immunities Ltd.




Rehovot, Israel


May 9, 2010
<PAGE>

      EXHIBIT 32.2

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Loudeye Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chris J. Pollak,
Chief Financial 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 as of the date of the financial statements contained therein.

      /s/ CHRIS J. POLLAK
      ------------------------
      Chris J. Pollak
      Chief Financial Officer
      August 9, 2006

      * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Loudeye Corp. and will be retained by Loudeye Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       66
# C_2014421EN.01005101.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/51

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — CW v Parliament

(Case F-48/13) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Staff report - Opinions and comments included in the staff report - Manifest errors of assessment - Misuse of powers - None))

2014/C 421/71

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CW (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CW to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CW to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 63.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16033]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2921-000]


Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative; Notice of Filing

June 11, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 4, 1998, Pacific Northwest Generating 
Cooperative tendered for filing its Quarterly Transaction Report for 
the period ended March 31, 1998.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before June 19, 1998. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lindwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16033 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Finish line in sight for agency’s first full audit; corrective actions, sustainment next steps

/ Published Oct. 16, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, Department of Defense’s Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Guidance Oct. 12 blog
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 135256 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 135256 COA: 271155 Wayne CC: 05-012697-01 PATRICK LAWRENCE BARNES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 2, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0211 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.

February 19, 2008

Clerk
Page 1 of 4 

## STUDY SPECIFIC SUPPLEMENT

To General Study Plan: 9 20

- 30

D

- erythro

- hex

- 2

- enonic acid, .gamma.

- lactone, monosodium

salt [CAS RN 6381

- 77

- 7] :

Assessment of Ready Biodegradability; CO 2 

## Evolution Test

Study Director: N Best

Test Facility: Harlan Laboratories Ltd.

Shardlow Business Park

Shardlow

Derbyshire

DE72 2GD

UK

Sponsor: Univar USA Inc.

17425 NE Union Hill Road

Redmond

WA 98052

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Study Monitor: Greenwich Chemical Consulting, Inc.

3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 635

Palm Beach Gardens

FL 33410

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Harlan Study Number: 41401177

Proposed Schedule:

Experimental Starting Date: 31 May 2014

Experimental Completion Date: 30 June 2014

Draft Report Date: 31 July 2014Harlan Study Number: 41401177 Study Specific Supplement Page 2



### Test Item

Information as provided by the Sponsor

.

Identification: D

- erythro

- hex

- 2

- enonic acid, .gamma.

- lactone, monosodium salt

[CAS RN 6381

- 77

- 7]

This study is being performed based on the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Section 4 Test Rule and the regulations set forth under 40 CFR 799.5087.



### Special Conditions

Study specific parameters:

GSP Section 1.1 Guidelines / Regulations:

The study will be conducted according to the following internationally accepted guidelines and

recommendations:

**•** OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals (1992) No 301B "Ready Biodegradability: CO 2

Evolution Test"

**•** Method C.4

- C of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 440/2008

**•** US EPA Fate, Transport and Transformation Test Guidelines OCSPP 835.3110 (Paragraph

(m))

GSP Section 3.2.1 Inoculum:

The study will be conducted using aerobic activated sewage sludge from Loughborough

sewage treatment works.



## GENERAL INFORMATION

Distribution List

The original s tudy s pecific s upplement will be retained in the study file. Copies of the s tudy

s pecific s upplement and g eneral s tudy p lan along with any amendments will be distributed as

follows:

For the Sponsor: John V. Massingale

Greenwich Chemical Consulting, Inc.

Quality Assurance: Harlan Laboratories Ltd, Shardlow, UKHarlan Study Number: 41401177 Study Specific Supplement Page 3Harlan Study Number: 41401177 Study Specific Supplement Page 4



## SIGNATURES

Study Director: N Best

.................................................. Date:

Test Facility

Management: C Mead

.................................................. Date:

For the Sponsor: John V. Massingale

Greenwich Chemical Consulting, Inc.

................................................. Date:

Note: These signatures also acknowledge the procedures described in the corresponding General

Study Plan

.
# C_2013260EN.01002301.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 18 June 2013 — Ilie Nicolae Nicula v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-331/13)

2013/C 260/40

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ilie Nicolae Nicula

Applicant:

Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Are the provisions of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 17, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 110 TFEU, the principle of legal certainty and the principle prohibiting reformatio in peius, both affirmed in Community law and in the case-law of the Court of Justice, (1) to be interpreted as precluding legislation such as Emergency Order No 9/2013?

reformatio in peius

1

---

(1)  Case C-381/97 Belgocodex [1998] ECR I-8153, and Case 10/78 Belbouab [1978] ECR 1915.

1

Belgocodex

Belbouab

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Abdallah Elawar, Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 892]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), imposed June 18, 2014, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257 [2011]; *People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133 [2014]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Austin, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31524-31525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15332]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, and Section 
122 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9622, notice is hereby given that on May 
29, 1998, a proposed De Minimis Consent Decree in United States v. Kux 
Manufacturing, et. al., Civil Action No. 98-72189 was lodged with the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 
Southern Division. This consent decree represents a settlement of 
claims of the United States against Kux Manufacturing, Eppinger 
Manufacturing Company, MascoTech Coatings, Inc., f/k/a Vacumet 
Finishing, Seaman Industries, Inc., A.T. Wagner Company, Metamora 
Products, Inc., Conwed Corporation, Aircraft Specialties Inc., Albar 
Industries, Inc., and Precision Coatings, Inc., for

[[Page 31525]]

reimbursement of response costs and injunctive relief in connection 
with the Metamora Landfill Superfund Site (``Site'') pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 
42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
    Under this settlement with the United States the ten parties will 
pay a total of $1,026,221 in reimbursement of response costs incurred 
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency at the Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United 
States v. Kux Manufacturing, et. al., D.J. Ref. 90-11-3-289L.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern 
Division, 211 West Fort Street, Suite 2300, Detroit, MI 48226, at the 
Region 5 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590, and at the Consent Decree 
Library, 1120 G Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 
624-0892. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained in 
person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW, 
4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In requesting a copy, please enclose a 
check in the amount of $8.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Bruce Gelber,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-15332 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2445

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the applicability

of the generation-skipping transfer tax.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 21 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Mr. DANFORTH (for himself, Mr. BOREN, Mr. WALLOP, Mr. PRYOR, Mr.

GRASSLEY, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. ROTH, Mr.

DASCHLE, and Mr. BREAUX) introduced the following bill; which was

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the

applicability of the generation-skipping transfer tax.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY OF GENERA4 TION-SKIPPING TRANSFER TAX.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2651 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to generation assignment) is

7 amended by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f),

8 and by inserting after subsection (d) the following new

9 subsection:
2

•S 2445 IS

1 ‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULE FOR PERSONS WITH A DE2 CEASED PARENT.—

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of determin4 ing whether any transfer is a generation-skipping

5 transfer, if—

6 ‘‘(A) an individual who has an interest in

7 property is a descendant of a parent of the

8 transferor (or the transferor’s spouse or former

9 spouse), and

10 ‘‘(B) such individual’s parent who is a lin11 eal descendant of the parent of the transferor

12 (or the transferor’s spouse or former spouse) is

13 dead at the time the transfer from which such

14 interest is established or derived is subject to a

15 tax imposed by chapter 11 or 12 upon the

16 transferor (and if there shall be more than 1

17 such time, then at the latest such time),

18 such individual shall be treated as if such individual

19 were a member of the generation which is 1 genera20 tion below the lower of the transferor’s generation or

21 the generation assignment of the youngest living an22 cestor of such individual who is also a descendant of

23 the parent of the transferor (or the transferor’s

24 spouse or former spouse), and the generation assign-
3

•S 2445 IS

1 ment of any descendant of such individual shall be

2 adjusted accordingly.

3 ‘‘(2) LIMITED APPLICATION OF SUBSECTION TO

4 COLLATERAL HEIRS.—This subsection shall not

5 apply to any individual who is not a lineal descend6 ant of the transferor (or the transferor’s spouse or

7 former spouse) if, at the time of the transfer, such

8 transferor has any living lineal descendant.’’

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

10 (1) Section 2612(c) of the Internal Revenue

11 Code of 1986 (defining direct skip) is amended by

12 striking paragraph (2) and by redesignating para13 graph (3) as paragraph (2).

14 (2) Section 2612(c)(2) of such Code (as so re15 designated) is amended by striking ‘‘section

16 2651(e)(2)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 2651(f)(2)’’.

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

18 this section shall apply to terminations, distributions, and

19 transfers occurring after the date of the enactment of this

20 section.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16466]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Receipt of Application for Endangered Species Permit

    The following applicants have applied for permits to conduct 
certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided 
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.):

PRT-841019

Applicant: Dr. Michael C. Wooten, Auburn University, Alabama

    The applicant requests authorization to take (capture, tag, 
release, or translocate) the endangered Alabama Beach mouse, Peromyscus 
polionotus ammobates, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, P.p. allophrys, 
Perdido Key beach mouse, P.p. trissyllepsis, and the (currently 
proposed for listing as endangered) St. Andrews beach mouse, P.p. 
peninsularis, throughout the species' ranges in Alabama and Florida, 
for the purpose of enhancement of survival of the species.
    Written data or comments on these applications should be submitted 
to: Regional Permit Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 
Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345. All data and 
comments must be received by July 22, 1998.
    Documents and other information submitted with this application are 
available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act 
and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written 
request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 
(Attn: David Dell, Permit Biologist). Telephone: 404/679-7313; Fax: 
404/679-7081.

    Dated: June 15, 1998.
Sam D. Hamilton,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 98-16466 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
DAVID B. BILLENS

,

Petitioner

,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3891

____ _________________________/

Opinion filed February 4, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

– Original Jurisdiction

David B. Billens, pro se

, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition f or writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

LEWIS, C. J., WOLF and ROBERTS, J J

. , CONCUR.
2017-0168.

#### State v. Burrell.

Fayette App. No. CA2016-04-005, 2016-Ohio-8454.
The Hon. Richard S. Arnold stepped down as Chief Judge of the United States 1

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the close of business on April 17, 1998. He

has been succeeded by the Hon. Pasco M. Bowman II.

The Hon. Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District 2

of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3755EM

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * On Appeal from the 

* United States District Court

v. * for the Eastern District 

* of Missouri.

*

Douglas W. Russell, * [Not To Be Published.]

*

Appellant, *

___________

Submitted: April 17, 1998

Filed: April 27, 1998

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, LOKEN, Circuit Judge, and PRATT, 1 2

District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Hon. George F. Gunn, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern

3

District of Missouri.

-2-

In this appeal, the defendant, Douglas W. Russell, challenges the sentence

imposed upon him by the District Court for one count of possession of

3

methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Defendant complains that the government

broke its plea agreement with him when it failed to file a motion for downward

departure under § 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. We disagree. Defendant

himself committed material breaches of the plea agreement. In these circumstances,

the government was not obliged to file a downward-departure motion.

Affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.