alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1818]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from GATX 
Rail (WB512-10--12/17/04), for permission to use certain data from the 
Board's Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request may be obtained 
from the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and 
Administration.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to this request, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, 
Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of 
the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are 
codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1541.

Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-1818 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18184]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

September 7, 2005.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Dates: Written comments should be received on or before October 14, 
2005 to be assured of consideration. Financial Crimes Enforcement 
Network (FinCEN)
    OMB Number: 1506-0022.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Customer Identification Programs for Future Commission 
Merchants and Introducing Brokers.
    Description: Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act added a subsection 
(1) to 31 U.S.C. 5318 of the Bank Secrecy Act that requires the 
Secretary of Treasury to require financial institutions to establish 
and maintain programs to verify the identity of customers opening an 
account. FinCen has adopted such rules for Futures Commission Merchants 
and Introducing Brokers.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 20,471 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Russell Stephenson, (202) 354-6012, Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network, Suite 200, 2070 Chain Bridge Road, Vienna, 
VA 22182.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7316, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Michael A. Robinson,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-18184 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
Exhibit
      23.1











**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos.
      333-127357, 333-42082, 333-47259, 333-68255, 33-77051) on Form S-8 of Tier
      Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated December 13, 2007
      relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and the
      financial statement schedule which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders,
      which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tier Technologies,
      Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended September 30, 2007.








/s/McGladrey
      & Pullen, LLP


Vienna,
      Virginia


December
      13, 2007
# CE2004070EN.01006701.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/67

---

(2004/C 70 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1930/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Population movements in the oil-rich areas of Sudan

Subject:

The bloody civil war in Sudan has claimed two million lives. Four million people have fled their homes. European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (ECOS), a network of 70 European organisations, predominantly church-based and other Christian bodies, notes that tens of thousands of Sudanese nationals have been forced to flee from Reweng County in the West Upper Nile region as a result of conflicts over oil extraction, and with the knowledge of the oil companies. A large proportion of the revenue which oil brings into Sudan goes on military expenditure. Only 2 % of the Sudanese budget is spent on health care, while 48 % goes for military and police purposes, e.g. the purchase of Russian Mig 29 fighters, Mig 24 helicopter gunships and Τ 72 tanks.

What measures is the EU taking through the Commission to influence the Sudanese government and the oil companies to halt this deliberate movement of population from the oil-rich areas? What is the EU doing to persuade countries not to sell expensive high-technology weaponry to the warring parties in Sudan?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

(17 July 2003)

The Union has always been concerned with the situation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from the different areas of the civil conflict, but in particular from those areas in which oil is extracted. This issue was raised in the Union/Sudan Political Dialogue that took place in December 2002 in Khartoum.

The signature by the parties in the context of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Peace Negotiations of the two Memoranda of Understanding, which concern the cessation of hostilities and protection of civilians, constitute a major step forward. According to Commission's information IDPs are returning to their areas of origin.

The Commission has no competence as regards the behaviour of oil companies, in particular those that are active in Southern Sudan, since their countries of origin are not within the Union (China, Malaysia, India, etc.). The only European company present there, Lundin, suspended its operations for the last 18 months.

As regards the trade in arms the Union fully applies and complies with the United Nations resolution that forbids the sale of arms to Sudan. However, the Commission is aware that both parties are buying arms from countries outside the Union.

---
Arthur O. ARMSTRONG v. William STEWART, et al.

No. 336P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Arthur O. Armstrong, Pro Se, for Armstrong.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 20th day of June 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wilson County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 438 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 

marketing of authorized generic drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2007 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. KOHL, and Mr. LEAHY) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

prohibit the marketing of authorized generic drugs. 

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 ‘‘Fair Prescription Drug 

5 Competition Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF AUTHORIZED GENERICS. 

7 Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

8 Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 438 IS

1 ‘‘(o) PROHIBITION OF AUTHORIZED GENERIC

2 DRUGS.— 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

4 provision of this Act, no holder of a new drug appli5 cation approved under subsection (c) shall manufac6 ture, market, sell, or distribute an authorized ge7 neric drug, direct or indirectly, or authorize any 

8 other person to manufacture, market, sell, or dis9 tribute an authorized generic drug. 

10 ‘‘(2) AUTHORIZED GENERIC DRUG.—For pur11 poses of this subsection, the term ‘authorized generic 

12 drug’— 

13 ‘‘(A) means any version of a listed drug 

14 (as such term is used in subsection (j)) that the 

15 holder of the new drug application approved 

16 under subsection (c) for that listed drug seeks 

17 to commence marketing, selling, or distributing, 

18 directly or indirectly, after receipt of a notice 

19 sent pursuant to subsection (j)(2)(B) with re20 spect to that listed drug; and 

21 ‘‘(B) does not include any drug to be mar22 keted, sold, or distributed— 

23 ‘‘(i) by an entity eligible for exclu24 sivity with respect to such drug under sub25 section (j)(5)(B)(iv); or 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•S 438 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) after expiration or forfeiture of 

2 any exclusivity with respect to such drug 

3 under such subsection (j)(5)(B)(iv).’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Milton Silvels, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 220]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Norman I. Siegel, A.J.], entered on April 1, 2005) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a Tier III hearing that petitioner had violated an inmate rule.

It is hereby ordered that said proceeding be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Matter of Free v Coombe,*234 AD2d 996 [1996]). Present— Kehoe, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.
Loan
Agreement

    


    Party
A(Borrower):Harbin Humankind
Biology Technology Co., Limited

    


    Party
B(Lender):Xin
Sun

    ID
Number:23010219660523161X

    


    On the
basis of equality, voluntariness and negotiation, both Party A and Party B enter
into this agreement about the loan.

    


    
      I. Party
B loans USD 34,000 to Party A and provides the loan before January 23,
2009.

    

    II. Interest: No Interest.

    III. Life
of Loan: No fixed terms of repayment.

    IV. Date
and Method of Payments: Party A will make the repayments in cash according to
the operation of its company.

    V. Settlements
of Diputes: apply for arbitration in local arbitration committee.

    VI. This
contract is taken into effect since signing date. This contract is executed in
two copies with the same legal effect. Both parties hold one copy
respectively.

    


    
      
        
          
            	
                    Party
      A(Seal):

                  	
                    Party
      B:

                  
	
                    Harbin
      Humankind Biology

                  	 
      
	
                    Technology
      Co. Limited

                  	
                    /s/
      Xin Sun

                  
	 
      	 
      
	
                    Date:

                  	
                    Date:
      January 22, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited condensed balance sheets and unaudited condensed statements of
income found on pages 3 and 4 of the Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to
date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,351,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,406,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,793,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,372,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,322,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,838,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,209,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,372,000 
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,210,000
<CGS>                                          134,000 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  134,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,619,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (543,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (543,000)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.15)

</TABLE>
STATE v. WILSON.

No. COA07-974.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2008.

Certification Date May 27, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (06CRS50046).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7109** 

JAMES CHARLES CALWILE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. R. H. MAUNEY , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 6:15

- cv - 02089

- TMC )

Submitted : December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
James Charles Calwile , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Charles Calwile seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and d ismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the d istrict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cal wile has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Calwile’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense3 with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequatel y presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
----

(2004/C 33 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2118/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   Temporary Agency Workers Directive

Will the Commission please give its view on the failure to reach agreement on the Temporary Agency Workers Directive on 3 June?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The failure of the Employment and Social Affairs Council of 3 June 2003 to reach agreement on the draft temporary agency workers Directive (1) was due to a blocking minority of four Member States (Denmark, Germany Ireland and the United Kingdom) who were demanding a permanent exemption for assignments of less than six months from the application of the principle of equal treatment for temporary agency workers. Such an exemption would have meant that the vast majority of temporary agency workers would fall outside the scope of the equal treatment provisions of the Directive.

The Lisbon European Council (23 and 24 March 2000) called for a balance between flexibility and security for Community labour markets. The Commission's proposal tries to strike this balance by providing minimum protection for temporary agency workers on the one hand, and by lifting current restrictions on the use of that type of work in order to create jobs on the other. The Commission hopes that a common position will be reached without delay and is committed to playing its role in ensuring that the mandate of the Brussels European Council of March 2003 to reach agreement by December 2003 is respected.

----

(1)  Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and the Council on working conditions for temporary workers, OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002 as amended, COM(2002) 701 final.

----
STATE v. Lester BARNETT, Jr.

No. 379P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney Genera, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of August 2008 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court from Denial of Motion for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Enviro Voraxial Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alberto DiBella, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 the Report fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







By:           /s/ Alberto DiBella


Alberto DiBella


Principal Financial Officer


April 14, 2010
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 14

- 00017

- CV

Cynthia Ann TURNER

, Appellant

v.

Troy Adam TURNER

, Appellee

From the County Court a t Law No

. 1, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CVG

- 002200

- C1 Honorable Alvino (Ben) Morales, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 5, 2014

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to di smiss this appeal. We grant the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a)(1). Because the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties regarding the

assessment of costs, we order all costs assessed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d)

(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/241Show full title

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/241 of 9 February 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect            of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/241                     

# of 9 February 2015

# amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial                        integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining                           or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine(1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 17 March 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/145/CFSP.

(2)In view of the continued gravity of the situation on the ground in Ukraine, the Council considers that additional persons                              and entities should be added to the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures as set out in the                              Annex to Decision 2014/145/CFSP.

(3)The Annex to Decision 2014/145/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision 2014/145/CFSP.

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on 16 February 2015.

It shall be published in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

Done at Brussels, 9 February 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

F. Mogherini                            

## ANNEXU.K.**List of persons and entities referred to in Article 1**

### I.**Persons**U.K.

### II.**Entities**U.K.

1

OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16.
Loan
Agreement

    


    Party
A(Borrower):Harbin Humankind
Biology Technology Co., Limited

    


    Party
B(Lender):Xin
Sun

    ID
Number:23010219660523161X

    


    On the
basis of equality, voluntariness and negotiation, both Party A and Party B enter
into this agreement about the loan.

    


    
      I. Party
B loans USD 28,500 to Party A and provides the loan before May 25,
2009.

    

    II. Interest: No Interest.

    III. Life
of Loan: No fixed terms of repayment.

    IV. Date
and Method of Payments: Party A will make the repayments in cash according to
the operation of its company.

    V. Settlements
of Diputes: apply for arbitration in local arbitration committee.

    VI. This
contract is taken into effect since signing date. This contract is executed in
two copies with the same legal effect. Both parties hold one copy
respectively.

    


    
      
        
          	
                  Party
      A(Seal):

                	
                  Party
      B:

                
	
                  Harbin
      Humankind Biology

                	 
      
	
                  Technology
      Co. Limited

                	
                  /s/
      Xin Sun

                
	 
      	 
      
	
                  Date:

                	
                  Date:
      May 24, 2009