alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Delegation of Authority Under Section 506(a)(3) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 621 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the authority under section 506(a)(3) of the FAA to direct the drawdown of up to $571.3 million in defense articles and services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training, to provide assistance to Taiwan. 

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2025-00260

Billing code 4710-10-P
G T B INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GULF TO BAY DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D12-5011

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Alan Boyd CURTIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0454

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Ismael Angel RIOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3705

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Robin REID, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3586

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 24, 2019]

*Affirmed.*
Case 3:00-cv-00913-D Document 518 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 5924
Case 3:00-cv-00913-D Document 518 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 5925
# C_2019016EN.01002202.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Prahova — Romania) — Cartrans Spedition Srl v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova, Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii

(Case C-495/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 146(1)(e) and Article 153 - Road transport transactions directly connected with the export of goods - Supply of services by intermediaries taking part in such transactions - Rules on proof of export of goods - Customs declaration - TIR carnet))

(2019/C 16/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Prahova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cartrans Spedition Srl

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Prahova, Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii

Operative part of the judgment

Article 146(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, on the one hand, and that provision in conjunction with Article 153 of that directive, on the other hand, must be interpreted as precluding a tax practice of a Member State under which the exemption from value added tax, for, respectively, the supply of transport services directly connected with the export of goods and for the supply of services by intermediaries taking part in those supplies of transport services is subject to the taxable person producing a customs export declaration in respect of the relevant goods. In that regard, it is for the competent authorities, for the purposes of granting those exemptions, to examine whether the meeting of the condition relating to the export of the relevant goods can be inferred, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, from all of the information available to those authorities. In that context, a TIR carnet which is certified by the customs offices of the third country for which the goods are destined, and which is produced by the taxable person, constitutes evidence which, in principle, those authorities must duly take into account, unless they have specific reasons to doubt the authenticity or reliability of that document.

---

(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.

---
EXHIBIT 31: Rule 13a-14(a) Certification  I, Thaddeus A. Wier, Jr., certify that:  1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Centale, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this 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  report;  3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this  report;  4.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:  a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,  to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.  Date: February 14, 2007 /s/ Thaddeus A. Wier, Jr. Thaddeus A. Wier, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 72

In the Interest of J.S., minor child
Ethan Hinze, L.B.S.W., Petitioner and Appellee

v. J.S., Jr., child, Respondent and K.V., mother; J.S., father, Respondents and Appellants

No. 20230062

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Nicholas W. Chase , Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam

. Rebecca R. Jund , Assistant State’s Attorney , Fargo, N

. D ., for petitioner and appellee; sub mitted on brief.

Elizabeth J. Sundby, Fargo, N

. D ., for respondent and appellant K.V., mother; submitted on brief.
Kylie M. Oversen, Fargo, N

. D ., for respondent and appellant J.S., father; submitted on brief.1 Intere st of J.S. No. 20230062

Per Curiam

. [¶1] J.S., Sr. , and K.V. appeal from a juvenile court order affirming a judicial referee’s findings of fact and order terminatin g their parental rights over their child, J.S

. , Jr. They argue that the juvenile court abused its discretion , and J.S., Sr. , argues the trial c ourt erred in finding the child was “in need of protection” and that the causes thereof were likely to continue. We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1 (a) (2 ) and (4 ).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
Case 4:04-cr-00108-A Document 69 Filed 03/29/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 228
Case 4:04-cr-00108-A Document 69 Filed 03/29/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 229
Michael SHELTON AS TRUSTEE OF the 8712 MCADAM RESIDENTIAL LAND TRUST, Appellant, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; Steven D. Cragg; Kimberly R. Cragg; Unknown Tenant I; Unknown Tenant IL; Copperfield at Tampa Homeowners' Associaton, Inc.; Citibank, National Association, Successor by Merger with CFSB, National Association, Successor by Merger with Citibank Federal Savings Bank; the Unknown Beneficiaries of the 8712 McAdam Residential Land Trust; Unknown Spouse of Michael Shelton, and Any Unknown Heirs, Devisees, Grantees, Creditors, and Other Unknown Persons or Unknown Spouses Claiming by, Through and Under Any of the Above-Named Defendants, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-4836

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019.

Affirmed.
# C_2016326EN.01003001.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/30

---

Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Sabre GLBL v EUIPO (INSTASITE)

(Case T-375/16)

(2016/C 326/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sabre GLBL, Inc. (Southlake, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘INSTASITE’ — Application for registration No 13 882 162

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 in Case R 1742/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2019004EN.01000602.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Bulgaria) — ‘Walltopia’ AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Veliko Tarnovo

(Case C-451/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 12(1) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 14(1) - Posted workers - Legislation applicable - A1 certificate - Whether the employee is subject to the legislation of the Member State in which his employer is established - Conditions)

(2019/C 4/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Walltopia’ AD

Defendant: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Veliko Tarnovo

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, read together with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that an employee recruited with a view to being posted to another Member State must be regarded as having been ‘just before the start of his employment ... already subject to the legislation of the Member State in which his employer is established’, within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 987/2009, even if that employee was not an insured person under the legislation of that Member State immediately before the start of his employment, if, at that time, that employee had his residence in that Member State, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 330, 2.10.2017.

---
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 171 

To require the inspector general of the Department of Transportation to 

conduct an audit on the use of Federal funds by certain entities providing 

public transportation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS (for herself and Mr. GOTTHEIMER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the inspector general of the Department of Transportation to conduct an audit on the use of Federal 

funds by certain entities providing public transportation, 

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 ‘‘Make Transportation 

5 Authorities Accountable and Transparent Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 171 IH

1 SEC. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT ON PUBLIC TRANS2 PORTATION CORONAVIRUS RELIEF SPEND3 ING. 

4 (a) INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT.— 

5 (1) AUDIT REQUIRED.—The inspector general 

6 of the Department of Transportation shall conduct 

7 an audit of funds provided to each specified transit 

8 agency under the applicable laws during the 5 fiscal 

9 years ending before the date of enactment of this 

10 Act. 

11 (2) CONTENTS OF AUDIT.—The audit con12 ducted under paragraph (1) shall include the 

13 amount of funds received under each of the applica14 ble laws and a description of how such funds were 

15 spent. 

16 (3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 

17 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

18 inspector general shall submit to Congress a report 

19 containing the results of the audit. 

20 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

21 (1) APPLICABLE LAWS.—The term ‘‘applicable 

22 laws’’ means the following: 

23 (A) Chapter 53 of title 49, United States 

24 Code. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 171 IH

1 (B) The Coronavirus Preparedness and 

2 Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 

3 2020. 

4 (C) The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco5 nomic Security Act. 

6 (D) The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

7 2021. 

8 (E) The American Rescue Plan Act of 

9 2021. 

10 (2) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.—The term 

11 ‘‘public transportation’’ has the meaning given the 

12 term in section 5302 of title 49, United States Code. 

13 (3) SPECIFIED TRANSIT AGENCY.—The term 

14 ‘‘specified transit agency’’ means the 5 entities pro15 viding public transportation with the most unlinked 

16 passenger trips for calendar year 2019, as reported 

17 to the National Transit Database, that received Fed18 eral funds under any of the applicable laws. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF METALS USA, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    153,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               257,900
<PP&E>                                          82,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 467,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     216,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   467,000
<SALES>                                        507,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               507,800
<CGS>                                          390,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  487,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (100)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28


</TABLE>
David Lecannon SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-124

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO Furnished 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 Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Hugh Martin, Chief Executive
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,

(i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 30, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    Hugh Martin                   
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Hugh Martin                          
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
Order entered October 14, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00915
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A .M., A MINOR On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF12
- 11107
- U 

### O R DER Appellee’s motion for extension of time to file appellee’s brief is GRANTED , and the time for appellee to file her brief is extended to October 14, 2014.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
# C_2016314EN.01002501.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/25

---

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-301/16)

(2016/C 314/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India) and Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India, in so far as it relates to the Applicants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/388 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India, in so far as it relates to the Applicants; and

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that by means of the determination of the export prices, the Commission infringed Articles 2(8), 2(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by means of the determination of the export prices, the Commission infringed Articles 2(8), 2(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that by means of its price effects, injury and causation determinations, the Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 4(1), 5(4) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by means of its price effects, injury and causation determinations, the Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 4(1), 5(4) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the failure to disclose essential facts and considerations and to grant sufficient time to submit comments infringed Articles 20(4) and 20(5) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the failure to disclose essential facts and considerations and to grant sufficient time to submit comments infringed Articles 20(4) and 20(5) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009.

---