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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 880 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 880

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax-exempt bond 
          financing for fixed-wing emergency medical aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2009

  Mr. Hastings of Washington (for himself and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax-exempt bond 
          financing for fixed-wing emergency medical aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. TAX-EXEMPT BOND FINANCING FOR FIXED-WING EMERGENCY MEDICAL 
              AIRCRAFT.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 147 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to no portion of bonds may be issued for 
skyboxes, airplanes, gambling establishments, etc.) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The preceding sentence 
shall not apply to any fixed-wing aircraft equipped for, and 
exclusively dedicated to providing, acute care emergency medical 
services (within the meaning of 4261(g)(2)).''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to obligations issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019305EN.01002401.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 July 2019 — Mykola Yanovych Azarov v Council of the European Union

(Case C-416/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds and economic resources - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name - Decision by an authority of a third State - Council’s obligation to verify that that decision was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2019/C 305/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (represented by: A. Egger and G. Lansky, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 April 2018, Azarov v Council (T-190/16, not published, EU:T:2018:232); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 April 2018, Azarov v Council (T-190/16, not published, EU:T:2018:232);

| 2. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov.

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred both in the proceedings at first instance and in the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

---
# C_2020230EN.01000601.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Mons — Belgium) — Wagram Invest SA v Belgian State

(Case C-640/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 78/660/EEC - Annual accounts of certain types of companies - Principle that a true and fair view must be given - Acquisition of a financial fixed asset by a public limited company - Entry as a charge, in the profit and loss account, of a discount relating to a non-interest-bearing debt due after one year and entry of the purchase price of the asset as an asset in the balance sheet after deduction of the discount)

(2020/C 230/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wagram Invest SA

Defendant: Belgian State

Operative part of the judgment

In the case of the acquisition by a public limited company of a financial fixed asset, for which payment of the price is to be by long-term, interest-free instalments, under conditions similar to those of a loan, the principle of a true and fair view laid down in Article 2(3) of Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] concerning the annual accounts of certain types of companies, is to be interpreted as not precluding the use of an accounting method which provides for the entry as a charge in the profit and loss account, at the market rate, of a discount relating to a non-interest-bearing debt becoming due after one year relating to that acquisition, and the entry of the purchase price of the fixed asset as an asset in the balance sheet after deduction of that discount.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---
Exhibit 99.5 Form of PwC
Consent for Form 40-F Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP We hereby consent to the inclusion in EnCana
Corporations (i) Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended
December 31, 2005; (ii) registration statements on Form F-9 (File
Nos. 333-113732 and 333-118737); and (iii) registration statements on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-124218, 333-13956 and 333-85598), of our audit
report dated February 6, 2006, on the consolidated balance sheets of
EnCana Corporation as at December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the consolidated
statements of earnings, retained earnings and cash flows for each of years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, to be filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.  Chartered Accountants
Calgary, Alberta
February 14, 2006
December 27, 2023

VIA Portal

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Attention: Chris Kirkpatrick, Secretary

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: CFTC Regulation 40.6(d) Notification: Nodal Exchange Weekly Notification of Rule 

Amendments

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) Regulation 

40.6(d), Nodal Exchange submits this weekly notification of non-substantive revisions made, during 

the week of December 18, 2023, to the Nodal Exchange Participant Agreement. The Exchange 

revised section 5.2, which previously referenced “Sections 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4, and 5 through 26” to

renumber the reference to “Sections 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4, and 5 through 27”. The renumbering

revision went into effect on December 20, 2023.

The Nodal Exchange Participant Agreement is attached hereto with the correction noted in red.

If you have any question or need additional information regarding this submission, please contact 

me at 703-962-9853 or markotic@nodalexchange.com. 

Sincerely,

/s/ Max Markotic

Managing Director 

Attachments:

Nodal Exchange Participant Agreement (redline)
ATLANTIC NAMED STORM LANDFALL BINARY OPTIONS

Table 1

for the 2016 Tropical Cyclone Season

List of Strike Codes that are In-the-money for each given Atlantic Named Storm Landfall point

The following table correlates Atlantic Named Storm Landfall points with corresponding in-the-money Cantor Exchange Strike Codes. The Final Settlement of 

the next sequential ANSL Contract will be determined by the Exchange looking up the latitude and longitude of landfall and, if such landfall is a Qualifying 

Atlantic Landfall, then settling the corresponding Strike Codes listed in Table 1 at one dollar ($1.00) and settling all other Strike Codes for that contract at zero 

dollars ($0.00).

Cantor Exchange Strike Codes generally correspond to the approximately 9500 U.S. Postal Service ZIP Codes whose geographic centroids lie within 75 statute 

miles of a latitude and longitude point that is proximal to the U.S. Atlantic Basin coastline, which includes the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of 

Mexico.

Users of this table should note the following:

 Only latitudes and longitudes listed in this table will be used to qualify landfalls. Although rare, named storms having landfalls that are not listed in 

Table 1 are considered to be an “out-of-bounds” landfall and are not a Qualifying Atlantic Landfall. Therefore the ANSL Contract will continue trading 

as though no landfall occurred.

 Certain landfall latitude and longitude points may lie in territories that are not part of the continental United States. For example, certain qualifying 

latitude and longitude points are located within the territorial boundaries of the Dry Tortugas, the Bahamas, and Canada. The points are included 

because their latitude and longitude are within 75 miles of the centroid of a U.S. ZIP Code and therefore are considered impactful on those ZIP Codes.

 Notwithstanding that the U.S. Postal Service occasionally adds, deletes or redefines the centroids of ZIP Codes, the relationships in Table 1 are static 

for each calendar year and no changes by the U.S. Postal Service made after January 1st of the year in which a Contract is listed will affect the 

definition of which Strike Codes are settled in-the-money for each landfall during that calendar year.

 Several ZIP Codes cover large areas and may not be contiguous. Therefore, when viewing these ZIP Codes on a mapping tool, these may appear to lie 

farther than 75 miles from an Atlantic Basin latitude or longitude landfall point. However, in all cases the Exchange has determined that the centroid 

of the ZIP Code lies within 75 miles of at least one such landfall point.
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ENACTED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-Fof Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais—CEMIG (the “Company”) for the periodended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Flávio Decat de Moura, ChiefFinancial and Investor Relations Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/    | Flávio Decat  de Moura  |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Flávio Decat  de Moura  |
|   | Title: | Chief Financial and Investor |
|   |   | Relations Officer            |
|        |        |                              |        |  |

 

Date:                    May 25,2005

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.1.1

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                     REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT

     This First Amendment to Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (this
"Amendment"') is entered into as of August 31, 2005 by and between Dayton
Superior Corporation (the "Seller") and STAG Capital Partners, LLC (the
"Purchaser").

                                   BACKGROUND

     A. Seller and Purchaser entered into a Real Estate Purchase and Sale
Agreement with an Effective Date of August 2, 2005 (the "P&S Agreement")
concerning certain premises located at 1900 Wilson, Parsons, Kansas, 721 Richard
Street, Miamisburg, Ohio, 636 South 66th Terrace, Kansas City, Kansas and 625
Crane Street, Aurora, Illinois.

     B. Seller and Purchaser wish to ratify and amend the P&S Agreement as
provided below.

     C. Capitalized terms used herein without definition have the meanings given
to them in the P&S Agreement.

                                    AGREEMENT

     NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the Seller and Purchaser agree
as follows:

     1. The end of the Study Period (as defined in Section 5.2 of the P&S
Agreement) is extended to 6:00 P.M. (local time in Boston, Massachusetts) on
September 30, 2005.

     2. The Closing Date (as defined in Section 2.3 of the P&S Agreement) is
extended to October 10, 2005, subject to extension as provided in the P&S
Agreement.

     3. Except as otherwise provided above, the P&S Agreement is ratified and
confirmed and remains in full force and effect.

     4. All references in the P&S Agreement to "this Agreement" shall mean the
P&S Agreement as amended by this Amendment.

     5. This Amendment may be executed by facsimile and in counterparts and it
shall be sufficient that the signature of each party appear on one or more of
such counterparts.

            [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank;
                            signature page follows.]

<PAGE>

     EXECUTED under seal as of the date first above written.

                                        SELLER:

                                        Dayton Superior Corporation


                                        By: /s/ Steven C. Huston
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Steven C. Huston
                                              ----------------------------------
                                        Title: Vice President, General Counsel
                                               and Secretary
                                               ---------------------------------


                                        PURCHASER:

                                        STAG Capital Partners, LLC


                                        By: /s/ Benjamin S. Butcher
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Benjamin S. Butcher
                                        Title: Manager
#### Vason *vs.*Strauss.

Where a property owner wrote to another to go to her lot and cut off the hydrant in her yard, and he did not do this, but without other authority, knowledge or consent on her part, laid a hundred feet of conduit pipe, furnished an iron top and repaired water-piping and faucet, he was not entitled to sue and recover of her therefor.

January 12, 1886.

Contracts. Actions. Before Judge Roney. Richmond Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1884.

Reported in the decision.

Claiborne Snead, by F. W. Capers, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Adolph Brandt, for defendant,

*834Blandford, Justice.

Mrs. Yason wrote Strauss and directed Mm to go to 306 "Washington street and cut off the hydrant in the yard. This was the only employment of Strauss by Mrs. Yason. Strauss, instead of doing as he was directed, laid down 100 feet of conduit pipe, furnished an iron top, repaired water-pipe and faucet, and for his labor and the things mentioned he charged her $31.25. He sued Mrs. Yason in a justice’s court and obtained a judgment for the full amount of his account She sued out a writ of *certiorari*to the superior court. That court overruled the *certiorari*and affirmed the judgment of the justice.

Strauss was not authorized to do any work for Mrs. Ya-son, except to cut off *the*hydrant in the yard. This he did not do, and without being employed by her, he did other work wi'hout any knowledge or consent on her part. For this work and labor by Strauss, Mrs. Yason is not liable, and he is not. entitled to recover therefor. So we think that there was error on the part of the court below in overruling the *certiorari*and in not sustaining the same.

Judgment reversed.
[929 NE2d 396, 903 NYS2d 333]

#### J. Virgil Waggoner et al., Appellants, v Kenneth A. Caruso et al., Respondents.

Decided May 11, 2010

*875APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Lally Mahon & Rooney LLP,*New York City *(James J. Mahon*of counsel), for appellants.

*Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP,*New York City *(Frederick B. Warder III*and *Rosanne E. Felicello*of counsel), for Kenneth A. Caruso, respondent.

*Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,*New York City *(E. Leo Milonas*and *David G. Keyko*of counsel), respondent pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

The Appellate Division properly held that plaintiffs J. Virgil Waggoner and J.VW. Investment Ltd. of Dominica did not state a claim for legal malpractice insofar as they failed to allege that, but for defendants’ alleged malpractice, they would have successfully recovered the $10 million investment in an underlying proceeding *(see Davis v Klein,*88 NY2d 1008, 1009-1010 [1996]). The court also properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claim in this case for breach of fiduciary duty as duplicative of the claim for legal malpractice.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ROMEO ELIAS HERNANDEZRODRIGUEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10166

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-01408-RCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Romeo Elias Hernandez-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s

judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for

FILED

FEB 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

13-10166
reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Hernandez-Rodriguez’s counsel has filed a brief

stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as

counsel of record. We have provided Hernandez-Rodriguez the opportunity to file

a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has

been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED.

2 13-10166
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 23 - 0731 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BILLY JOE ROGERS,

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 June 28 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 20 2024

05/20/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0731
Exhibit 21.1


            Subsidiary Companies of Life Sciences Research, Inc.

  Name                                                  Jurisdiction

  Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd.                         England & Wales

  Huntingdon Life Sciences Inc.                         Delaware, USA

  HIH Capital Ltd.                                      Jersey

  HIH Ltd.                                              England & Wales

  HRC Ltd.                                              England & Wales

  Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd.                       England & Wales

  Huntingdon Consulting Engineers Ltd.                  England & Wales

  Huntingdon LSR Ltd.                                   England & Wales

  Paragon Global Services Ltd.                          England & Wales

  Pathfinder Clinical Development Ltd.                  England & Wales

  Pathfinder Nominees Ltd.                              England & Wales

  Life Sciences Research Ltd.                           England & Wales

  Aquatox Ltd.                                          England & Wales

  Huntingdon Life Sciences Co., Ltd.                    Japan

  LSR Pensions Ltd.                                     England & Wales

  CentraLabS Clinical Research, Inc.                    Delaware, USA
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13954]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3320, Amdt. #6]


State of Washington

    In accordance with a notice received from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, dated May 21, 2001, the above-numbered Declaration 
is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for 
physical damages as a result of this disaster to June 30, 2001.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for economic injury the deadline is November 30, 
2001.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: May 29, 2001.
James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-13954 Filed 6-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P