alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008265EN.01000301.xml

| 18.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 265/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5336 — Allianz/Generali/TopTorony and Shaza/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 265/03)

On 10 October 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5336. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5336. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 498 

To ensure objective, independent review of task and delivery orders. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2011 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Mrs. MCCASKILL, and Mr. 

PORTMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To ensure objective, independent review of task and delivery 

orders. 

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 ‘‘Independent Task and 

5 Delivery Order Review Extension Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE FOR CERTAIN PRO7 TESTS OF TASK AND DELIVERY ORDER CON8 TRACTS. 

9 Section 4106(f)(3) of title 41, United States Code, 

10 is amended to read as follows: 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 498 IS

1 ‘‘(3) EFFECTIVE PERIOD.—Paragraph 1(B) 

2 and paragraph (2) of this subsection shall not be in 

3 effect after September 30, 2016.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 655 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 655

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as the ``Spencer Byrd 
                       Powers, Jr. Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 28, 2011

  Mr. Cochran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as the ``Spencer Byrd 
                       Powers, Jr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SPENCER BYRD POWERS, JR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Spencer 
Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet at 3/29/97,  Statement of Income and Accumulated Deficit at 3/29/97 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                         755,293
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,556,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                   50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    1,659,170
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,969,210
<PP&E>                                         2,909,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,540,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,537,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          990,095
<BONDS>                                        67,979
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,479,838<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,537,912
<SALES>                                        1,585,222
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,586,794
<CGS>                                          1,144,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,476,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                119,945
<INCOME-TAX>                                   25,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            94,945
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   94,945
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.032
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.031
<FN>
<F1>  Common Stock as reported above is net of $1,494,838 Accumulated Deficit.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory: West Lafayette, IN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Outreach
                        Fact Sheets
                                    Videos
                                    Seminars
                                    Careers
                    Our Lab
                        Phosphorus Removal Structures
                                    CEAP St. Joseph River Watershed
                                    WEPP Model
                                    USLE Database
                                    RUSLE
                                    
                                    Conferences
                                    Scientist Almuni
                                    Local TalksSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area West Lafayette, Indiana National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory Docs





- Gypsum Fact Sheet

Gypsum Fact Sheetheadline bar Gypsum Fact Sheet download


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

MICHAEL P. MISCH et al., on behalf of 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the STATE OF INDIANA, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF SOUTH 

BEND, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

Case No. 3:16-CV-587 JD 

ORDER

Two attorneys and their law firm filed this qui tam action against scores of Indiana 

hospitals. They assert claims on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act, and on 

behalf of the State of Indiana under similar state laws. The State of Indiana appeared and moved 

to dismiss the claims asserted on its behalf, pursuant to Indiana Code § 5-11-5.7-5(b) (permitting 

the attorney general to move to dismiss claims asserted on behalf of the state). The relators 

subsequently filed a joint stipulation with the State of Indiana agreeing to the dismissal with 

prejudice of any claims raised on behalf of the State of Indiana. Therefore, given the parties’ 

agreement, the motion to dismiss [DE 153] and the stipulation [DE 166] are GRANTED and the 

claims raised on behalf of the State of Indiana are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

The relators have now filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the claims brought on 

behalf of the United States, as well. [DE 169]. The United States, which previously declined to 

intervene in this action, responded by filing a notice that it consents to the dismissal of this case 

without prejudice to the United States, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). [DE 170]. Given the 

agreement between the relators and the United States that the federal claims should be dismissed 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 171 filed 01/22/18 page 1 of 2
2 

without prejudice, and given the early stage of this case, as none of the defendants have filed an 

answer or responsive pleading, the claims brought on behalf of the United States are now 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Because all claims asserted in this action have now been dismissed, the Clerk is 

DIRECTED to close this case. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: January 22, 2018 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 171 filed 01/22/18 page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Ronald A. Nimkoff, Petitioner, v Laura E. Drager et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 354]

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or *633disbursements. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
| (1)   | the                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Delta Oil & Gas, Inc. for the year                ended December 31, 2006 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the                year                ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of Delta Oil & Gas,                Inc.. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Douglas Bolen                        |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Douglas                Bolen                            |
| Title: | Principal                Executive Officer and Director |
| Date:  | April                2, 2007                            |

| By:    | /s/                Kulwant Sandher         |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Kulwant                Sandher             |
| Title: | Principal                Financial Officer |
| Date:  | April                2, 2007               |
----

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Procera Networks, Inc.; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| April 6, 2012                         |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |
| /s/ James Brear                       |   |
| James Brear                           |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |

----
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 09
- 00047
- CV
COPPERAS COVE INDEPE NDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT , Appellant
v.
TAMMY R. BROWN , Appellee

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. COT
- 08
- 38463

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Copperas Cove Independent School District appeals the trial court’s order denying the District’s plea to the jurisdiction. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN . § 51.014 (a)(8) (Vernon 2008 ). The District’s sole issue on appeal is whether the legislature
has clear ly and unambiguously waived a school district’s immunity from suit under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. Because the trial court did not err in denying the plea to the jurisdiction, we affirm the trial court’s order. Tammy R. Brown sued the District for sexual harassment under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, otherwise known as the Texas Commission on Human RightsCopperas Cove ISD v. Brown Page 2

Act. T EX
. L ABOR C ODE A NN . § 21.001, et seq. (Vernon 2006 & Supp 2009). The District filed a plea to the jurisdiction claiming, as it d oes on appeal, that school districts are not employers as defined by Chapter 21 and therefore, immunity is not waived. See id § 21.002(8) (Vernon Supp. 2009). The District makes a very interesting and intellectually stimulating argument, and if we were w riting on a clean slate, we would be inclined to pursue that argument. However, the Texas Supreme Court has already spoken on the subject and has held that immunity is waived as to a school district under Chapter 21. Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia , 253 S.W.3d 653, 660 (Tex. 2008). Granted, there is not much discussion about how the Supreme Court reached that decision; but it is a decision nonetheless, and we must abide by that decision. See Lubbock County v.
Trammel's Lubbock Bail Bonds , 80 S.W.3d 580, 585 (Tex. 2002). Because the Texas Supreme Court has held that a school district’s immunity is waived under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, we hold the trial court did not err in denying the District’s plea to the jurisdiction. The Distr ict’s sole error is overruled. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed December 30 , 2009 [CV06]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8152

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. RONALD STUART ROSE, a/k/a Rahking, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00444-RLW-1; 3:07-cv-198)

Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 11, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Stuart Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Stuart Rose seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rose has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 128 (Thursday, July 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 36160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14530]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-862]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Aspen API, Inc.

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Aspen API, Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of 
basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental 
Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 9, 2021. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before August 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a 
hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All 
request for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this 
is notice that on May 5, 2021, Aspen API, Inc., 2136 Wolf Road, Des 
Plaines, Illinois 60018, applied to be registered as an importer of the 
following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Controlled substance                 Drug code   Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remifentanil....................................       9739          II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance as a 
bulk active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) for distribution to 
manufacturers of finished dosage prescription drugs. No other activity 
for these drug codes is authorized for this registration.
    Approval of permit applications will occur only when the 
registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized 
under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import 
of the Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished 
dosage forms for commercial sale.

William T. McDermott,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-14530 Filed 7-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2282 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methoxybenzaldehyde. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2005 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Methoxybenzaldehyde. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4-METHOXYBENZALDEHYDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.09.12 4-Methoxybenzaldehyde 

(CAS No. 123–11–5) (provided for in subheading 

2912.49.10) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2282 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ