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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3779 

To require the Director of National Intelligence to annually submit reports 

on violations of law or executive order by personnel of the intelligence 

community, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2013 

Mr. HIMES (for himself and Mr. SCHIFF) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) 

A BILL 

To require the Director of National Intelligence to annually 

submit reports on violations of law or executive order 

by personnel of the intelligence community, 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. ANNUAL REPORT ON VIOLATIONS OF LAW OR 

4 EXECUTIVE ORDER. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title V of the National Security 

6 Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3091 et seq.) is amended by add7 ing at the end the following: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3779 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 509. ANNUAL REPORT ON VIOLATIONS OF LAW OR EX2 ECUTIVE ORDER. 

3 ‘‘(a) ANNUAL REPORTS REQUIRED.—The Director of 

4 National Intelligence shall annually submit to the congres5 sional intelligence committees a report on violations of law 

6 or executive order by personnel of an element of the intel7 ligence community that were identified during the previous 

8 calendar year. 

9 ‘‘(b) ELEMENTS.—Each report required under sub10 section (a) shall include a description of, and any action 

11 taken in response to, any violation of law or executive 

12 order (including Executive Order 12333 (50 U.S.C. 3001 

13 note)) by personnel of an element of the intelligence com14 munity in the course of such employment that, during the 

15 previous calendar year, was determined by the director, 

16 head, general counsel, or inspector general of any element 

17 of the intelligence community to have occurred or more 

18 than likely to have occurred.’’. 

19 (b) INITIAL REPORT.—The first report required 

20 under section 509 of the National Security Act of 1947, 

21 as added by subsection (a), shall be submitted not later 

22 than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

23 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

24 in the first section of the National Security Act of 1947 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3779 IH

1 is amended by adding after the section relating to section 

2 508 the following: 

‘‘Sec. 509. Annual report on violations of law or executive order.’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,822
<SECURITIES>                                    11,587
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                       502
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,506
<PP&E>                                          13,103
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,974
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,514
<SALES>                                          7,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,183
<CGS>                                              715
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,863
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (201)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (69)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1908]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34652]


BNSF Railway Company \1\--Temporary Trackage Rights Exemption--
Union Pacific Railroad Company

    Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has agreed to grant temporary 
overhead trackage rights to the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) over UP's 
rail line between Stockton, CA, UP milepost 88.90 (Fresno Subdivision) 
and Bakersfield, CA, UP milepost 313.6 (Mojave Subdivision), a distance 
of approximately 225 miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Effective January 20, 2005, the name of ``The Burlington 
Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company'' was changed to ``BNSF 
Railway Company.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on January 23, 
2005, and the temporary trackage rights are intended to expire on 
February 5, 2005. The purpose of the temporary trackage rights is to 
allow BNSF to bridge its train service while its main lines are out of 
service due to programmed track, roadbed, and structural maintenance.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employee affected by the 
acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the 
conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 
354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease 
and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980), and, in accordance with the 
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit in United Transportation Union-General Committee of 
Adjustment (GO-386) v. Surface Transportation Board, No. 03-1212, 2004 
U.S. App. LEXIS 6496 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 6, 2004), any employee affected by 
the discontinuance of those trackage rights will be protected by the 
conditions set out in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 
360 I.C.C. 91 (1979).
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8). If it contains 
false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. 
Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed 
at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically 
stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34652, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a 
copy of each pleading must be served on Sarah W. Bailiff, The 
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, PO Box 961039, Fort 
Worth, TX 76161-0039.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: January 26, 2005.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-1908 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Dennis K. JOHNSON, DVM, Petitioner, v. NORTH CAROLINA VETERINARY MEDICAL BOARD, Respondent.

No. COA15-1278

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Alfred Lee COOPER

340P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Mr. Alfred Lee Cooper, Pro Per.

Ms. Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for the State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of September 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
1110.

#### Richardson *v.*Mayor and Council of Macon.

Certiorari, from Bibb . superior court — Judge Felton. March 3, 1908.

Argued April *21,*1908.

Decided March 16, 1909.

*E. W. Maynard,*for plaintiff. *G. II. Hall, Jr.,*for defendant.

Russell, J.

This ease is controlled by the constitutional question therein which was certified to the Supreme Court. See *Richardson*v. *Macon,*132 *Ga.*122 (63 S. E. 790). *Judgment affirmed.*
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Third Chamber)

8 October 2008

Case F-44/07

**Florence Barbin**

**v**

**European Parliament**

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Procedure for the allocation of merit points in the European Parliament – Illegality of the instructions governing that procedure – Examination of comparative merits)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Barbin seeks annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 16 October
2006 allocating her one merit point under the 2005 promotion procedure.

**Held:**The application is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Promotion – Consideration of comparative merits*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 43 and 45)*

2.      *Plea of illegality – Scope – Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded*

*(Art. 241 EC)*

1.      The consideration of comparative merits for the purpose of awarding merit points to an official may be conducted only within
the directorate-general to which he is assigned, in view of the limited number of merit points available for each directorate-general,
and given that each official in a directorate or department who is eligible for promotion is competing with all the other
officials in his directorate or department for a limited number of merit points. The directorate-general designated to award
merit points is that in which the official has spent the longest period of assignment during the reference year.

(see paras 44-45)

See:

T-289/04 *Lantzoni* v *Court of Justice* [2006] ECR-SC I‐A‐2‐39 and II‐A‐2‐171, paras 68 and 69; T-156/05 *Lantzoni* v *Court of Justice* [2006] ECR-SC I‐A‐2‐189 and II‐A‐2‐969, paras 52 and 53

2.      The scope of a plea of illegality must be confined to what is essential for resolving the dispute. The general measure the
illegality of which is pleaded must be applicable, directly or indirectly, to the circumstances which are the subject of the
action, and there must be a direct legal connection between the individual decision contested and the general measure in question.

(see para. 61)

See:

21/64 *Macchiorlati Dalmas* v *High Authority* [1965] ECR 175, 187; 32/65 *Italy* v *Council and Commission* [1966] ECR 389, 409

T-6/92 and T-52/92 *Reinarz* v *Commission* [1993] ECR II‐1047, para. 57; T-60/99 *Townsend* v *Commission* [2000] ECR-SC I‐A‐11 and II‐45, para. 53

F-19/05 *Sanchez Ferriz* v *Commission* [2006] ECR-SC I‐A‐1‐41 and II‐A‐1‐135, para. 57
# C_2010317EN.01005004.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/50

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Baele and Others v Commission

(Case F-70/06) (1)

1

()

2010/C 317/93

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006, p. 36.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427  I, Nguyen Quoc Khanh, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Develocap, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures 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;  c) disclosed in this report any change in registrant's internal control over financial reporting the occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting,  Dated: September 14, 2009/s/ Nguyen Quoc KhanhNguyen Quoc Khanh
President
State of North Carolina v. Justin Duane Hurd

No. 154P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Attorney at Law, for Hurd, Justin Duane.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th of April 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                      UNIVERSAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Three Months Ended June 30,           Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                           ---------------------------------   ----------------------------------
                                                                 2003             2002               2003              2002
                                                               ----               ----               ----               ----
<S>                                                        <C>               <C>               <C>                <C>
Earnings (Loss) per share:

BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
Numerator:
       Income (Loss) from continuing operations            $        15,083   $       517,225   $      (959,387)   $       669,136

Denominator:
       Weighted average common shares outstanding                8,224,949         8,185,921         8,224,949          8,170,955
       Effect of dilutive securities
             Conversion of preferred stock                       3,014,380         3,014,380                            3,014,380
             Common stock equivalents from
               warrants and options                                964,962                 -                                    -
                                                           ---------------   ---------------   ---------------    ---------------
Denominator for diluted earnings per common share               12,204,291        11,200,301         8,224,949         11,185,335
                                                           ===============   ===============   ===============    ===============

       Basic net income (loss) per common share            $          0.00   $          0.06   $         (0.12)   $          0.08
       Diluted net income (loss) per common share          $          0.00   $          0.05   $         (0.12)   $          0.06
</TABLE>
----

----

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIEDPERSON**

I, **Anoush Ebrahimi**,confirm that:

I am the Qualified Person for theMineral Reserve section of the **Annual Information Form**of NevsunResources Ltd. dated February 25, 2015 (“AIF”).

I have read National Instrument43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and understandthese Standards as pertains to the work for which I am responsible as disclosedin the AIF.

I am a principal consultant withSRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. located at 22nd Floor, 1066 WestHastings Street, Vancouver, BC V6E 3X2, Canada.  I am a mining engineer with 24years of experience in mining operation as well as mine planning and design. This includes numerous base metal projects in recent years.  I received a Ph.D.degree in mining engineering from the University of British Columbia, Canada. I am an active member of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BritishColumbia (APEGBC).  I am a Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101, having 24years of experience which is relevant to the activity for which I am acceptingresponsibility.

I have reviewed the AIF to whichthis statement of consent applies.

I am independent of NevsunResources Ltd. as described by Section 1.4 of NI 43-101.

I verify that the information inthe AIF is based on and fairly and accurately reflects in the form and contextin which it appears, the information in my supporting documentation relating toMineral Reserve.

I consent to the release of the AIFand this statement of consent by Nevsun Resources Ltd.

Dated this **25th day of February, 2015**

***“Anoush Ebrahimi”***__________________________       Signatureof Qualified Person

      ANOUSH  EBRAHIMI       Print name of Qualified Person

----
# C_2011072EN.01003401.xml

| 5.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 — Strack v Commission

(Case F-121/07) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal - Admissibility - Act adversely affecting an official)

2011/C 72/53

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Annulment of several Commission decisions denying immediate and comprehensive access to different data and documents concerning the applicant. Claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, p. 50.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Gregory Lynn Gordon

No. 132P11-10

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

From N.C. Court of Appeals (P11-153 P15-180) From Union (10CRS054307 10CRS4838 10CRS52962-63 10CRS53961-63 10CRS54013 95CR007265) Twenty-B District.

Gregory Lynn Gordon, for Gordon, Gregory Lynn.

*522Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st of June 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Union County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of June 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DANIEL LIRA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00225-CR

Appeal from the

171st Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20070D00353) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Daniel Lira attempts to appeal his convictions for attempt to commit theft of property,

greater than twenty thousand dollars, and less than one hundred thousand dollars and unlicensed

use of a criminal instrument. He was sentenced to serve 2 years’ in prison for each count,

sentences to be served concurrently. Finding that Appellant did not timely file a notice of appeal,

we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The record before us indicates that Appellant’s sentence was imposed in open court on

March 29, 2007. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Appellant’s notice of appeal was

not filed until June 20, 2008. By letter dated June 24, 2008, the clerk of this Court notified

Appellant in writing of our intent to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and requesting a

response showing grounds why the appeal should continue. Appellant has not responded to the

Court’s notice.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State,

918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed on
-2-

April 28, 2007, thirty days after the date sentence was imposed in open court. See TEX.R.APP.P.

26.2(a)(1). Pursuant to Rule 26.3, a court of appeals may grant an extension of time to file a

notice of appeal if the notice is filed within fifteen days after the last day allowed, and within the

same period, a motion is filed with the court of appeals reasonably explaining the need for the

extension of time. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. Because Appellant did not file

his notice of appeal until June 20, 2008, he failed to perfect the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss

the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

September 11, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)