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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [MT-922-05-1310-FI-P; NDM 85983, NDM 85987, NDM 85992, NDM 85998, and NDM 92293] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), the lessees, Headington Oil, Limited Partnership, Upton Resources U.S.A., Inc., Northern Energy Corporation, and W.H. Champion, timely filed petitions for reinstatement of oil and gas leases NDM 85983, NDM 85987, NDM 85992, NDM 85998, and NDM 92293, Billings County, North Dakota. The lessees paid the required rentals accruing from the date of termination, February 1, 2005. 

                        No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessees agree to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16                        2/3                         percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate for each lease. The lessees paid the $500 administration fee for the reinstatement of each lease and $155 cost for publishing this Notice.                     

The lessees met the requirements for reinstatement of the leases per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to reinstate the leases, effective the date of termination, February 1, 2005, subject to: 
      - The original terms and conditions of each lease;
      - The increased rental of $10 per acre for each lease;
      - The increased royalty of 162/3                         percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate for each lease; and                     
      - The $155 cost of publishing this Notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section, BLM Montana State Office, PO Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107, 406-896-5098. 

Karen L. Johnson, 

Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section. 

[FR Doc. 05-18456 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
Exhibit 4.7


 


AMENDMENT TO


GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.


1993 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


Effective: May 8, 2001


 






 


WHEREAS,
General Growth Properties, Inc. (the “Corporation”) maintains the General
Growth Properties, Inc. 1993 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”),
to provide incentive stock compensation to officers, employees and directors of
the Corporation and its affiliates and subsidiaries;


 


WHEREAS,
Section 12 of the Plan provides that each outside director of the Corporation
shall receive (i) an automatic grant, on the first day of each January during
such director’s term, of stock options to purchase 500 shares of the
Corporation’s common stock (the “automatic grant”), and (ii) upon joining the
Board of Directors, an initial grant of stock options to purchase 500 shares of
the Corporation’s common stock (the “initial grant”); and


 


WHEREAS,
amendment of the Plan is now considered desirable in order to increase the
automatic grant and the initial grant from options to purchase 500 shares of
the Corporation’s common stock to options to purchase 1,000 shares of the
Corporation’s common stock.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, by virtue of the power reserved to the Corporation by Section 8
of the Plan, the Plan be, and hereby is, amended by deleting subparagraph (a) of
Section 12 of the Plan and substituting, in lieu thereof, the following
subparagraph (a), effective as of May 8, 2001 for any automatic grant or
initial grant made on or after such date:


 


“(a)  Each director of the Company who is not
otherwise an employee of the Company or any Subsidiary or Affiliate from and
after the effective date of the Plan shall, on the first day of each January during
such director’s term, automatically be granted Non-Qualified Stock Options to purchase
1,000 shares of Common Stock having an exercise price per share equal to 100%
of the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock at the date of grant of such
Non-Qualified Stock Option.  Each such
director, upon joining the Board, shall also be awarded an initial grant of
Non-Qualified Stock Options to purchase 1,000 shares of Common Stock having an
exercise price equal to 100% of the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock as of
such date.”
State v. Sheikh and Ali

217P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Sheikh, Ali Mahamed.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Attorney at Law, Southern Pines, for Ali, Abdulkadir Sharif.

Heather H. Freeman, Assistant Attorney General, Robert M. Curran, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of June 2016 by Defendant (AbdulKadir Sharif Ali) to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
Owen D. Leavitt v. Willie Hargrove

No. 268P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Owen D. Leavitt, for Leavitt, Owen Deshawn.

Paul J. Stainback, Attorney at Law, Henderson, for Hargrove, Willie.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 14th of July 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order 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."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of July 2016 by Plaintiff to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60931

Summary Calendar

IRFAN ALIJI BHAI KAROVALIYA; WAHIDA IRFAN KAROVALIYA

Petitioners

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A95 607 004

BIA No. A97 545 983

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Irfan Aliji Bhai Karovaliya and Wahida Irfan Karovaliya, natives and

citizens of India, have filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (BIA) order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture Act (CAT). 

On a petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews the factual

findings to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence. SilwanyUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 26, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60931

2

Rodriguez v. INS, 975 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir. 1992). Under the substantial

evidence standard, this court will affirm the BIA’s decision unless the evidence

compels a contrary conclusion. Id. “The applicant has the burden of showing

that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a

contrary conclusion.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). 

The evidence does not compel a conclusion that petitioners suffered past

persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular

social group, or political opinion or that it is more likely than not that they will

suffer such persecution if they are returned to India. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.16(b)(2)(i), (ii); Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 304 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1997).

Further, petitioners cannot meet the more demanding standard for withholding

of removal given that they cannot satisfy the standard for asylum. See Faddoul

v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). As to relief under the CAT, petitioners

failed to challenge the BIA’s conclusion that they were not eligible for relief

under the CAT in their brief. Accordingly, the issue is waived. Zhu v. Gonzales,

493 588, 593 n. 10 (5th Cir. 2007). The petition for review is therefore DENIED.
# C_2010011EN.01001902.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-193/07) (1)

1

2010/C 11/32

Language of the case: Polish

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

1

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Clarke, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ John A. Clarke

John A. Clarke

President and Chief Executive Officer



March _24, 2008
STATE of North Carolina, v. Richard George FLAKE, Defendant.

No. COA15-1361.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No prejudicial error in part, No error in part, Remanded in part.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 2007 – Gateway v OHIM – Fujitsu Siemens Computers (ACTIVY
Media Gateway)**

**(Case T-434/05)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark ACTIVY Media Gateway – Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks Gateway and GATEWAY – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Absence of similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 50-51)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1068/2004‐1), relating to opposition proceedings between Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH and Gateway, Inc. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark ACTIVY Media Gateway for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38 and 42 – Application No 2190627 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Gateway, Inc. |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Community and national word marks and figurative marks GATEWAY, GATEWAY 2000, GATEWAY.NET, GATEWAY PROFILE and GATEWAY ASTRO, for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37 and 38 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Gateway, Inc., to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). |
# C_2009006EN.01000501.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-214/07) (1)

1

(State aid - Aid scheme - Incompatibility with the common market - Implementation of the decision - Recovery of the aid granted - Absolute impossibility of giving effect to a decision)

(2009/C 6/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, S. Ramet and J.-C. Gracia, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (State aid C(2003) 4636, OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38) — Failure to take steps to recover the aid illegally granted — Implementation of the decision ordering the recovery of the aid not impossible

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to implement within the prescribed period Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that decision |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to implement within the prescribed period Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that decision

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CR-8538, styled The State of Texas v. Randall Douglas, in the 1

226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, the Honorable Sid Harle presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00623-CR

IN RE Randall DOUGLAS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 15, 2008, relator Randall Douglas filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Release for

Delay of Prosecution and Excessive Bail and his Motion for Reduction of Bond. Relator

acknowledges he is represented by counsel. We conclude trial counsel is also relator’s counsel for

an original proceeding on the issue presented. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See

Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid

representation means relator’s pro se petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s

review. See id.; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
04-08-00623-CR

-2-

1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator’s petition is denied. Relator’s motion for leave to file

the petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3861 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3861

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
       for business start-up expenditures from $5,000 to $10,000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2014

Ms. Shea-Porter (for herself, Ms. Kuster, and Mr. McNerney) 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 increase the deduction 
       for business start-up expenditures from $5,000 to $10,000.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reward and Encourage New Business 
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS START-UP EXPENDITURES.

    (a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 195(b)(1)(A) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$5,000'' and 
inserting ``$10,000''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 195(b) of such Code is amended 
by striking paragraph (3).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# CE2004070EN.01010802.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/108 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/108

---

(2004/C 70 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2480/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Canned tuna from Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia

Subject:

The production of some types of canned tuna from Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia involves the use of hydrolysed proteins to increase the drained weight of the product, a practice which might constitute consumer fraud bearing in mind that Community processing firms producing the same types of canned tuna in the EU do not use proteins as part of the production process.

Does the Commission not believe that the use of this protein in the production of the above canned tuna and its subsequent import into the EU might constitute fraud both against consumers and the Community industry?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

(26 September 2003)

Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991, laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (1), states what treatments for fishery products are authorised and the procedures to authorise new treatments.

1

The use of substances binding excess water in fishery products, such as hydrolysed proteins, is not authorised under this Directive.

It is up to the Member States, responsible for carrying out veterinary checks on importation, to check that hydrolysed proteins are not present in fishery products imported from third countries and to take the requisite measures (such as ordering the return of the consignment to its country of origin).

---

(1)  OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Travis Taylor Dail

No. 174P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Robert O'Hale, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Dail, Travis Taylor.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for the State.

*517***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of May 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 10th of May 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 10th of May 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order 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."
STATE of North Carolina v. Larry J. EDWARDS.

No. 82P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Larry J. Edwards, for Edwards, Larry J.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th of March 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Orange 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 13th of April 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.