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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4919 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4919

 To extend the educational flexibility program under section 4 of the 
             Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2006

Mr. Castle (for himself, Mrs. Musgrave, and Mr. Platts) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the educational flexibility program under section 4 of the 
             Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999.

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

SECTION 1. EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM EXTENSION.

    (a) Extension Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, the Secretary of Education is authorized to carry out the 
educational flexibility program under section 4 of the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (20 U.S.C. 5891b), until the date 
of enactment of an Act that reauthorizes programs under part A of title 
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 
et seq.), for any State that was an Ed-Flex Partnership State on 
September 30, 2004.
    (b) Designation.--
            (1) In general.--Any designation of a State as an Ed-Flex 
        Partnership State that was in effect on September 30, 2004, 
        shall be extended until the date of enactment of an Act that 
        reauthorizes programs under part A of title I of the Elementary 
        and Secondary Education Act of 1965, if the Secretary of 
        Education makes the determination described in paragraph (2).
            (2) Determination.--The determination referred to in 
        paragraph (1) is a determination that the performance of the 
        State educational agency, in carrying out the programs for 
        which the State has received a waiver under the educational 
        flexibility program, justifies the extension of the 
        designation.
                                 <all>
```
MEMORANDUM TO FILE 

TO: Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009; Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Navajo Nation; Regional Haze Requirements for Navajo 

Generating Station; Proposed Rule 

FROM: Anita Lee 

Date: June 19, 2013 

Subject: Record of Government-to-Government Consultation Meeting with the Fort 

McDowell Yavapai Nation during Public Comment Period 

1. Participants in the Conference Call Meeting 

 President Clinton Pattea and Carole Klopatek from the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (both by 

telephone); and Jared Blumenfeld, Colleen McKaughan (by telephone), Zoe Heller, Ann Lyons, 

and Anita Lee from EPA Region 9 

2. Date and Location of Meeting: 

 June 13, 2013; in San Francisco, CA 

3. General Statement of the Topic of Discussion: 

 Questions and concerns from the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation regarding potential impacts to 

water rates of EPA’s proposed action on NGS 

 Ms. Klopatek raised concerns that EPA’s discussion of impacts to Fort McDowell and other 

tribes in the Executive Order section of our proposed rulemaking was insufficient; in particular, 

EPA characterized the potential increase in water rates as an indirect impact on tribes when it 

directly affects tribes’ access to water from CAP. This represents an Environmental Justice issue. 

4. Copy of Any Materials Presented or Received (attached): 

 None
I. Background 

The mission of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is to provide independent 

analysis, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy to inform t he S ecretary, in the 

role of the Secretary as operator and regulator of the defense n uclear f acilities of the Department of 

Energy (DOE), in providing adequate protection of public health and safety at such defense nuclear 

facilities. This policy establishes certain aspects of the Board's communication and disposition of 

safety items to better enable the execution of the Board's functions consistent with its mission. 

II. Definitions

Potential Safety Item-anything that may become a safety item. 

Safety Item-any type of nuclear safety deficiency (i.e., Safety Observations, Safety issue, 

or Issue of Adequate Protection). 

Safety Issue-a safety item for which the Board requires additional information to assess 

whether it could challenge adequate protection of public health and safety. 

Issue of Adequate Protection-a safety item where the Board recommends corrective 

actions to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. 

III. Policy

• All potential safety items shall be communicated and made visible to the Board. If a

potential safety item involves an immediate hazard in the field, communications to the

Board and a DOE representative shall occur concurrently, if possible.

• All potential safety items shall be processed. This process shall support the Board's

determination of safety items and shall be limited to the collection and evaluation of 

information, the development of the technical basis, and the development of a

recommended course of action for consideration by the Board. This safety

determination by the Board shall be based on the summation of the evidence gathered,

independent technical analysis, and sound technical basis.

• The Board determines what constitutes a safety item for the agency.

• Each safety item shall be tracked, communicated to DOE, and dispositioned following a

documented and formal process involving the Board. No suggestion (implicitly or 

explicitly) shall be made for DOE and DOE contractors to take any actions outside this

formal process.

• A summary of all safety items, their status, and Board disposition shall be communicated

as part of the annual report to Congress for the applicable reporting period.
No. 09-7955.

#### Shaka Senegal Muhammad, Petitioner v. Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, et al.

559 U.S. 946, 130 S. Ct. 1519,

176 L. Ed. 2d 125,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1406.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0616

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY THOMAS DISHON,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 15, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 9 2022

03/09/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0616
# C_2017428EN.01000802.xml

| 13.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8700 — Engie/Omnes Capital/Prédica Prévoyance/Target)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 428/07)

On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8700. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8700. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132809 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: 132809 

 COA: 273282 

Charlevoix CC: 05-001310-FH 

DARREN WILLIAM KASSUBA, 05-002610-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
2

12

2

2
μ

η = 200

N M P I L = 50%

n1 n2
n1 n2

P I B P I D
CL CB CL CD R2


> C
No. 09-7172.

#### Kathalina Monacelli, Petitioner v. Fifth Third Bank, et al.

559 U.S. 1032, 130 S. Ct. 1944,

176 L. Ed. 2d 407,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2440.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 906, 130 S. Ct. 1284, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1078, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 885.
Print	
    - 
    -    					Published: 08 March 2024				 

 

#### The IC OSINT Strategy 2024-2026

 

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) released the Intelligence Community (IC) Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) Strategy for 2024-2026.

 

OSINT, or intelligence derived exclusively from publicly or commercially available information that addresses specific intelligence priorities, requirements, or gaps, is vital to the IC’s mission, providing unique intelligence value and enabling all other intelligence collection disciplines. Given the expansive and evolving open source environment, the IC has been working to modernize its approach to collecting, creating, and delivering OSINT, and the IC OSINT Strategy outlines the way forward.

 

View the IC OSINT Strategy here.
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Delta Oil
      & Gas, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, I certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





|(1) | the
              quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Delta Oil & Gas, Inc. for the
              quarter ended June 30, 2007 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
              quarter ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects,
              the
              financial condition and results of operations of Delta Oil & Gas,
              Inc..
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:
            /s/
                Douglas BolenName:
            Douglas
                BolenTitle:
            Principal
                Executive Officer and DirectorDate:
            August
                14, 2007By:
            /s/
                Kulwant SandherName:
            Kulwant
                SandherTitle:
            Principal
                Financial OfficerDate:
            August
                14, 2007
No. 09-9560.

#### Michael Christopher Davis, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1080, 130 S. Ct. 2120,

176 L. Ed. 2d 744,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3346.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 590 F.3d 847.
# C_2017428EN.01000801.xml

| 13.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8711 — Macquarie/Oiltanking/Oiltanking Odfjell Terminal Singapore)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 428/06)

On 5 December 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8711. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8711. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Li Yungao, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of China Autoparts,
Inc.;

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

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

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

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 13, 2004


/s/ Li Yungao
---------------------
Li Yungao
CEO
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 Terra Nostra Technology Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Regis Bosse, President and acting CFO, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  August 19, 2004

By: /s/ Regis Bosse

Name: Regis Bosse

Title:    President and Acting CFO
No. 09-8606.

#### Michael Burnett, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 996, 130 S. Ct. 1747,

176 L. Ed. 2d 220,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2293.

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# C_2017356EN.01000101.xml

| 21.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 356/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 356/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8175 — Exertis/Hammer)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 356/01)

On 19 December 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8175. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8175. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
No. 137,

Original.

#### State of Montana, Plaintiff v. State of Wyoming and State of North Dakota.

559 U.S. 989, 130 S. Ct. 1753,

176 L. Ed. 2d 210,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2273.

March 8, 2010.

Report of the Special Master received and ordered filed. Exceptions to the Report, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 45 days. Replies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 30 days. Surreplies, if any, with supporting briefs, may be filed within 30 days.
**AP7.7. APPENDIX 7.7**

**DOCUMENT NUMBER**

AP7.7.1.  The document number (located in record position (rp) 30-43 of transactions) is a nonduplicative number throughout the system.  For support of U.S. Forces, it is constructed as follows:  (See chapter 25 for document number construction for Security Assistance transactions.)

	AP7.7.1.1.  Department of Defense activity address code (DoDAAC) or Federal Standard Requisitioning and Issue Procedures (FEDSTRIP) activity address code (AAC) (rp 30-35).

	AP7.7.1.2.  Four-position ordinal date (rp 36-39).

	AP7.7.1.3.  Serial number (rp 40-43).

AP7.7.2.  The entries in rp 30 and 31 will always be the appropriate character(s) from appendix AP7.2  that indicates the Service/Agency (S/A).

AP7.7.3.  DoDAAC or FEDSTRIP AAC for each activity will be established and disseminated by each of the Services, DLA and the GSA.  (See DLM 4000.25, Volume 6, Chapter 2, DoDAAD.)  Each code so established will contain or serve as an address to permit shipping and billing for materiel and for mailing of documentation.

AP7.7.4.  Entries in rp 36-39 (date) will always be numeric and will indicate the actual date of transmittal from the requisitioner to the initial supply source.  If requisitions are predated to facilitate local processing, the requisition date will be amended (if necessary) to reflect the true date of transmittal.

	AP7.7.4.1.  Rp 36 will indicate the last numeric digit of the calendar year in which the document was originated.  Example:  0 for 1990, 1 for 1991, etc.

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

	AP7.7.4.2.  Rp 37-39 will indicate the numerical or consecutive day of the calendar year; for example, 035 is equal to February 4TH.

AP7.7-1

APPENDIX 7.7

Additional Examples:

AP7.7.5.  Document serial numbers, assigned at the discretion of the document originator, are entered in rp 40-43.  The document serial number will not be duplicated on the same day.  The serial number may be assigned to consist of alphanumeric characters, with the exception of alphas I and O (on inter-Service transactions) under the following criteria:

	AP7.7.5.1.  Rp 40 may consist of alpha or numeric characters with the utilization of certain alphas limited as specified in paragraph AP7.7.5.3., below.  Under DLMS implementation, this embedded information will be carried as a distinct data element referred to as the utilization code.

	AP7.7.5.2.  Rp 41-43 may consist of alpha or numeric characters on inter-S/A requisitions.  However, the entries in rp 41-43 will not be meaningful to the receiving S/A, but will be perpetuated on documentation initiated as a result of requisition processing.

	AP7.7.5.3.  The following alphabetic codes have been reserved for use in rp 40:
No. 09-9398.

#### Joseph Lee Gurnsey, Petitioner v. California, et al.

559 U.S. 1110, 130 S. Ct. 2410,

176 L. Ed. 2d 929,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3756.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.