alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §246. Powers of Secretary of the Treasury as affected by chapter

Nothing in this chapter contained shall be construed as taking away any powers heretofore vested by law in the Secretary of the Treasury which relate to the supervision, management, and control of the Treasury Department and bureaus under such department, and wherever any power vested by this chapter in the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal reserve agent appears to conflict with the powers of the Secretary of the Treasury, such powers shall be exercised subject to the supervision and control of the Secretary.

(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §10 (par.), 38 Stat. 261; June 3, 1922, ch. 205, 42 Stat. 621; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, §203(a), 49 Stat. 704.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, known as the Federal Reserve Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see References in Text note set out under section 226 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of sixth par. of section 10 of act Dec. 23, 1913. For classification to this title of other pars. of section 10, see Codification note set out under section 241 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Section 203(a) of act Aug. 23, 1935, changed name of Federal Reserve Board to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>                         Financial Data Schedule
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                    0
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,339,496
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              2,458
<OTHER-SE>                                       (1,341,954)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              0
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          0
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      4,576
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   13,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (17,851)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (17,851)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (17,851)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.00
        


</TABLE>
§ 20.603 How is an application approved or denied? ( a ) Each application must be approved if the applicant meets the eligibility criteria in this part for the type of assistance requested and all recipients will be redetermined for eligibility every 6 months. Financial assistance will be made retroactive to the application date.
( b ) An application must be denied if the applicant does not meet the eligibility criteria in §§ 20.300 through 20.516.
( c ) The social services worker must approve or deny an application within 30 days of the application date. The local social services worker must issue written notice of the approval or denial of each application within 45 days of the application date.
( d ) If for a good reason the social services worker cannot meet the deadline in paragraph (c) of this section, he or she must notify the applicant in writing of: ( 1 ) The reasons why the decision cannot be made; and
( 2 ) The deadline by which the social services worker will send the applicant a decision.
[65 FR 63159, Oct. 20, 2000; 65 FR 76563, Dec. 7, 2000]
# C_2007095EN.01004102.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/41

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-205/05) (1)

1

(Actions for annulment - Arbitration clause - e-Content Programme - Termination of contract - Repayment - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 95/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin and M. Patkova, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment, first, of the Commission's decision of 16 May 2003 to terminate contract EDC-53007 EEBO/27873; secondly, of the Commission's decision of 12 November 2004 to reimburse to the applicant an amount for the costs of labour not exceeding EUR 85 971; and thirdly, the Commission's decision of 7 March 2005 to issue a debit note in the amount of EUR 59 485 in respect of the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

1

---
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
REGARDING FORM 10-Q FOR QUARTER ENDING
JUNE 30, 2003, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

EXHIBIT 32.2

I, Stephanie Schmitt, Chief Financial Officer of Specialty Trust, Inc. (
Company), hereby state, certify and attest in this written statement that:

(a)     The quarterly report of the Company filed on form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)     The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                      |  |                                          |  | 
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Stephanie Schmitt |  | Dated this 14th of August, 2003         
|                      |  |                                         
|Name:Title:           |  | Stephanie SchmittChief Financial Officer |  | 

This certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.

36
# C_2007117EN.01002702.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/27

---

Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Scil Proteins v OHIM — Indena (affilene)

(Case T-87/07)

(2007/C 117/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Scil Proteins GmbH (Halle, Germany) (represented by: V. Dalichau, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Indena SpA (Milan, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the defendant dated 23 January 2006, and the decision-corrigendum of the Second Board of Appeal of 31 January 2007, Case R 10/2006-2 be annulled as far as the opposition is dismissed with respect to the goods ‘extracts of medical plants for use in the ... cosmetic and food industries, not for diagnostic purposes’; |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the defendant dated 23 January 2006, and the decision-corrigendum of the Second Board of Appeal of 31 January 2007, Case R 10/2006-2 be annulled as far as the opposition is dismissed with respect to the goods ‘extracts of medical plants for use in the ... cosmetic and food industries, not for diagnostic purposes’;

| — | the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Indena SpA

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘affilene ’for goods in class 1 — application No 2 751 931

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘AFFILIN ’for goods in classes 1 and 5

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition upheld partially

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 since the trade marks in question are confusingly similar also with regard to the goods for which the registration was allowed to proceed by the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law:

---
EXHIBIT 35.2

SERVICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Re: Assessment of compliance for services provided pursuant to the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated February 27, 2007, the Series Supplement,
dated March 4, 2014, the US$ Note Trust Deed, dated March 4, 2014, and other transaction documents relating to SMART ABS Series 2014-1US Trust (collectively, the Agreements).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | 1. | I, Alan Cameron, am a Director of Macquarie Securities Management Pty Limited (the Manager).
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the Managers activities during the period from April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance under each of the Agreements has been
made under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Manager has fulfilled all of its obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|Date: 26 June 2017                         
|                                           
|/s/ Alan Cameron                           
|Alan Cameron Director                      
|                                           
|Macquarie Securities Management Pty Limited
§ 575.6 Settlement, reduction, or waiver of civil fine. ( a ) *Reduction or waiver.* ( 1 ) Upon written request of a respondent received at any time prior to the filing of a notice of appeal under part 584 or part 585 of this chapter, the Chairman may reduce or waive a civil fine if he or she determines that, taking into account exceptional factors present in a particular case, the fine is demonstrably unjust.
( 2 ) All petitions for reduction or waiver shall contain: ( i ) A detailed description of the violation that is the subject of the fine;
( ii ) A detailed recitation of the facts that support a finding that the fine is demonstrably unjust, accompanied by underlying documentation, if any; and
( iii ) A declaration, signed and dated by the respondent and his or her counsel or representative, if any, as follows: Under penalty of perjury, I declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the representations made in this petition are true and correct.
( 3 ) The Chairman shall serve the respondent with written notice of his or her determination under paragraph (a) of this section, including a statement of the grounds for the Chairman's decision.
( b ) *Settlement.* At any time prior to the filing of a notice of appeal under part 584 or part 585 of this chapter, the Chairman and the respondent may agree to settle an enforcement action, including the amount of the associated civil fine. In the event a settlement is reached, a settlement agreement shall be prepared and executed by the Chairman and the respondent. If a settlement agreement is executed, the respondent shall be deemed to have waived all rights to further review of the violation or civil fine in question, except as otherwise provided expressly in the settlement agreement. In the absence of a settlement of the issues under this paragraph, the respondent may contest the assessed civil fine before the Commission in accordance with part 584 or part 585 of this chapter.
[58 FR 5844, Jan. 22, 1993, as amended at 80 FR 31995, June 5, 2015]
1 Prop os al for NCE L f or L iC oNiM n Oxi de B at t ery M ate ri al

T he EP A h as prop os ed a N ew Chemi cal Exposur e L imi t ( NCE L) of 0. 2 μ g/ m 3 f or t he L iC oNiM n

oxi de b a tt ery mat eri a l b a sed on standar d d efa ul t u n cer tai nty values

a

higher NCE L is sc ientifically justified.

usi ng e x tr apol ati on for poorly so lu bl e subs tan ce s.2 Fr om Ja ra be k et al (20 05 ).

∗3 A c cord i ng to Jarabek e t a l. “ T o co nstr uct t he rati o, v ari o us i nterna l d o semea sures thoug ht t o

ad dress both t he relevant physi coc h emic a l properti es of th e p a rt icl es and t he p ostul at e d

pathogen es is o f t he critic al effec t of i nte res t can b e used .”45 R eferenc e s:

I nt ernati onal L ife Scienc es Institute (I LSI), 2000

. T he Relevan ce of t he Rat Lun g R e sp o nse t o

P ar ticle Ov erl o ad f or Hum an Ri sk As ses sment: A Wor ksh o p C o ns en sus Rep ort, Inhal ati o n

Toxi co logy , 12 : 1 -17.

Jarab ek AM, Asghari an B, Mill er FJ. 2005

. D os imetric Adjustme nt s f or Int erspec i es

Ex tr apol ati o n of Inhal ed Poorly Solu bl e Par ticl es ( PSP ), Inhal ati on Toxi co logy , 17:317–33 4.67891011121314151617
# C_2007096EN.01001701.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel

(Case C-229/06) (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Pumpkin seeds which have lost their ability to germinate)

(2007/C 96/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Kiel

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Subheadings 1209 91 90 and 1212 99 80 — Shelled pumpkin seeds which have lost the ability to germinate and are intended for the baking industry

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 1212 99 80 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that shelled pumpkin seeds which have lost their ability to germinate and which are intended for use in the baking industry come under that subheading.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

1

---
# C_2010113EN.01003101.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/31

---

Action brought on 24 February 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-103/10)

2010/C 113/48

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and P. Andrade, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/121/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 amending Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances in order to adapt it to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 2006/121/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/121/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 amending Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances in order to adapt it to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 2006/121/EC.

1

| — | Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 1 June 2008.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 396, p. 850.

1

---
§ 42.1 What general principles apply to this part? ( a ) This part applies to every Bureau-funded school. The regulations in this part govern student rights and due process procedures in disciplinary proceedings in all Bureau-funded schools. To comply with this part, each school must: ( 1 ) Respect the constitutional, statutory, civil and human rights of individual students; and
( 2 ) Respect the role of Tribal judicial systems where appropriate.
( b ) All student rights, due process procedures, and educational practices should, where appropriate or possible, afford students consideration of and rights equal to the student's traditional Native customs and practices.
# C_2007082EN.01005601.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/56

---

Action brought on 26 January 2007 — Chassagne v Commission

(Case F-8/07)

(2007/C 82/118)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Minatchy, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the Commission's decisions dated 23 June 2006 and 27 October 2006 and adopt the measures arising from such annulment for the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decisions dated 23 June 2006 and 27 October 2006 and adopt the measures arising from such annulment for the applicant;

| — | Order every measure necessary to safeguard the applicant's rights and interests; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order every measure necessary to safeguard the applicant's rights and interests;

| — | Order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decisions, the Commission transferred the applicant, an official in DG TREN with the status, at that time, of half-time secondment for trade union activities, from that DG's list to the ‘A*10 list in Annex IV ’under the 2006 promotion procedure.

In support of his action, the applicant claims, in particular, that the decisions: (i) infringe the principle of the obligation to state reasons; (ii) are devoid of legal basis, and (iii) misapply Article 6(3)(b) of the General provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations.

---
§ 115.204 Audit corrective action plan. ( a ) A finding of “Does Not Meet Standard” with one or more standards shall trigger a 180-day corrective action period.
( b ) The agency and the facility shall develop a corrective action plan to achieve compliance.
( c ) The auditor shall take necessary and appropriate steps to verify implementation of the corrective action plan, such as reviewing updated policies and procedures or re-inspecting portions of a facility.
( d ) After the 180-day corrective action period ends, the auditor shall issue a final determination as to whether the facility has achieved compliance with those standards requiring corrective action.
( e ) If the facility does not achieve compliance with each standard, it may (at its discretion and cost) request a subsequent audit once it believes that is has achieved compliance.