alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.228 Is an Indian tribe or tribal organization entitled to interest if it wins its claim?

Yes. If an Indian tribe or tribal organization wins the claim, it will be entitled to interest on the amount of the award. The interest will be calculated from the date the awarding official receives the claim until the day it is paid. The interest rate will be the rate which the Secretary of the Treasury sets for the Renegotiation Board under the Renegotiation Act of 1951, Public Law 92-41, 26 U.S.C. 1212 and 26 U.S.C. 7447.
§ 585.1 What does this part cover? ( a ) This part applies to appeals of the following where the appellant does not elect a hearing before a presiding official and instead elects to have the matter decided by the Commission solely on the basis of the written submissions: ( 1 ) Violation(s) alleged in a notice of violation under § 573.3 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Proposed civil fine assessments under part 575 of this chapter;
( 3 ) Orders of temporary closure under § 573.4 of this chapter;
( 4 ) The Chair's decisions to void or modify a management contract under part 535 of this chapter subsequent to initial approval;
( 5 ) The Commission's proposals to remove a certificate of self-regulation under part 518 of this chapter; and
( 6 ) The Chair's decisions to approve or object to a tribal gaming regulatory authority's adoption of alternate standards from those required by the Commission's minimum internal control standards under part 543 of this chapter;
( 7 ) The Chair's decisions to approve or object to a tribal gaming regulatory authority's adoption of alternate standards from those required by the Commission's technical standards under part 547 of this chapter; and
( 8 ) Late fee notifications and assessments under part 514 of this chapter.
( b ) Appeals from these actions involving a hearing before a presiding official are brought under part 584 of this chapter.
[77 FR 58945, Sept. 25, 2012, as amended at 78 FR 21063, Apr. 9, 2013]
§ 13.26 Filing, form and service of papers. ( a ) *Filing and form.* ( 1 ) Documents filed with the ALJ will include an original and two copies.
( 2 ) Every pleading and paper filed in the proceeding will contain a caption setting forth the title of the action, the case number assigned by the ALJ, and a designation of the paper (e.g., Motion to Quash Subpoena).
( 3 ) Every pleading and paper will be signed by, and will contain the address and telephone number of, the party or the Person on whose behalf the paper was filed, or his or her Representative.
( 4 ) Papers are considered filed when they are mailed. Date of mailing may be established by a certificate from the party or its Representative or by proof that the Document was sent by certified or registered mail.
( b ) *Service.* A party filing a Document will, at the time of filing, serve a copy of such Document on every other party. Service upon any party of any Document other than those required to be served as prescribed in § 13.8 will be Made by delivering a copy, or by placing a copy of the Document in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed, to the party's last known address. When a party is represented by a Representative, service will be Made upon such Representative in lieu of the actual party.
( c ) *Proof of service.* A certificate of the Individual serving the Document by Personal delivery or by mail, setting forth the manner of service, will be proof of service.
#### § 19.7 [Reserved]
§ 2.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Commission. Commission* means the Federal Election Commission.
( b ) Commissioner or Member. Commissioner or Member means an individual appointed to the Federal Election Commission pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30106(a), but does not include a proxy or other designated representative of a Commissioner.
( c ) *Person. Person* means an individual, including employees of the Commission, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization, other than an agency of the United States Government.
( d ) *Meeting.* ( 1 ) *Meeting* means the deliberation of at least four voting members of the Commission in collegia where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official Commission business. For the purpose of this section, *joint conduct* does not include, for example, situations where the requisite number of members is physically present in one place but not conducting agency business as a body (e.g., at a meeting at which one member is giving a speech while a number of other members are present in the audience). A deliberation conducted through telephone or similar communications equipment by means of which all persons participating can hear each other will be considered a *meeting* under this section.
( 2 ) The term *meeting* does not include the process of notation voting by circulated memorandum for the purpose of expediting consideration of routine matters. It also does not include deliberations to schedule a meeting, to take action to open or close a meeting, or to release or withhold information, or to change the subject matter of a meeting under 11 CFR 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7.
[50 FR 39972, Oct. 1, 1985, as amended at 50 FR 50778, Dec. 12, 1985; 65 FR 9206, Feb. 24, 2000; 79 FR 77844, Dec. 29, 2014; 82 FR 60852, Dec. 26, 2017]
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Jeremy Allen Johnson, Appellant

No. 06-13-00227-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1323358). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jeremy Allen Johnson, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 22, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Order entered March 20, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 19 - 01478 - CR DONTARIOUS JAMAL SCO TT, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296 th J udicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296 - 81021 - 2019

O RDER Appellant, who was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a ch ild und er th e age for fourteen years , filed his brief on March 11, 2020

. In his brief, appellant ide nti f ies the victi m by name

. This Court does not allow a party to file a brief that discloses the names of victims or witnesses who were children at the time of the offen ses , or the name s of any other children discussed or identified at trial

. Se e T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b) (“Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing w ith the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not containsensitive dat a.”), id. 9.10(a)(3) (“ Sensitive Data Defined. Sensitive data consists of

. . . a birth dat e, a home address, and the name of a ny person who was a minor at the time the offense was committed.”). Accordingly, we STRIKE appellant’s brief. We ORDE R appellant to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, an amended brief that id entifies t he v ictim and a ny witnesses who were children at the time of this or any other off ense either generically (fo r example, “victim” ) or by initials on ly, including when quo ting relevant portions of the record, giving a statement of the ca se, or atta ching an a ppen dix. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable John Roach, Pre sid ing Judge, 2 96 th Judicial District Court ; Hunter Biederman , and the Collin County District Attorney

.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL CORP.





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 Quarterly Report of Transfer Technology International Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chris Trina, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Chris TrinaChris TrinaChief Executive Officer

Chief Financial OfficerAugust 22, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Transfer Technology International Corp. and will be retained by Transfer Technology International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2006241EN.01001001.xml

| 6.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4285 — ALS/GNT)

(2006/C 241/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 August 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4285. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4285. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

** **

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8(Nos. 333-137217, 333-125139, 333-111253, 333-97891, 333-67790, 333-93407,333-93413, 333-69761, 333-69765, 333-39189, 333-39213, 333-30771 and 333-26797)and Form S-3 (No. 333-137237) of Vital Images, Inc. of ourreport dated March 16, 2009 relating to the financial statements and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthis Form 10-K.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP

Minneapolis,Minnesota

March 16,2009

 

----
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Mortality, Retirement and PV Max Guarantee 
-  ERISA Section 4044 Retirement Assumptions 
-  Retirement Rate Category Tables 2012 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Retirement Rate Category Tables 2012

The rate tables applicable for other years are accessible from the main XRA webpage.

January 13, 2022
EX-4.4 SPECIMEN CERTIFICATE, SERIES 2008D-NV









Exhibit 4.4








	organized under the laws of the state of south Carolina number south Carolina animis opibusque parati dum
spiro sperd shares the south financial group, inc. 10% mandatory convertible non-cumulative preferred stock, series 2008d-nv




	this certifies that specimen is the owner of one ***hundred*** shares transferable only on the books
of the corporation by the holder hereof in person or by attorney upon surrender of this certificate
properly endorsed. in witness whereof, she said corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by
its duly authorized officers and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this 8th day of may a.d. 2008




	President secretary shares no par each © goes 220





 









 












	THE SHARES EVIDENCED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1993,
AS AMENDED(THE “SECURITIES ACT” ) OR THIS SECURITIES LAW OF ANY STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION. THE SHARES
MAY NOT BE OFFERED, SOLD, PLEDGED OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED EXCEPT (1) PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION
UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OR (2) PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT,
IN EACH CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS AND THE SECURITIES LAWS OF OTHE
JURIDICTIONS, AND IN THE CASE OF A TRANSACTION EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION, UNLESS THE COMPONY HAS RECEIVED
AN OPINION OF COUNSEL REASONABLY SATISFACTORY TO IT THAT SUCH TRANSACTION DOES NOT REQUIRED REGISTRATION UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT AND SUCH OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS.




	For value received hereby self assign and transfer under shares represented by the within certificate and do
hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said shares on the books of the within named
corporation with full power of substitution in the premises dated in presence of




	NOTICE THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE,
IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
#### § 293.18 May a compact or amendment include provisions addressing the State's costs for regulating gaming activities?

Yes. If the compact or amendment includes a negotiated allocation of jurisdiction to the State for the regulation of the gaming activity, the compact or amendment may include provisions to defray the State's actual and reasonable costs for regulating the specific Tribe's gaming activity. If the compact does not include requirements for the State to show actual and reasonable annual expenses for regulating the specific Tribe's gaming activity over the life of the compact, the lack of such a requirement may be considered evidence of a violation of IGRA.
-  Home 
-  Technical Resources 
-  Pipeline Technical Resources 

# In This Section

                      -  Pipeline Technical Resources 

## Related Documents

                  -                                          FAQs: Alternative MAOP                   
                  -                                          Covered Task List: MAOP                   
                  -                                          Interim Guidelines for Confirming Pipe Strength in Pipe Susceptible to Low Yield Strength for Gas Pipelines, September 10, 2009                   

## Contact Us

Office of Pipeline Safety
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**phmsa.pipelinesafety@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4595****Fax:**202-366-4566****Business Hours:**9:00am-5:00pm ET, M-F

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Alternative MAOP

PHMSA amended the pipeline safety regulations to prescribe safety requirements for the operation of certain gas transmission pipelines at pressures based on higher operating stress levels. The result is an increase of maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) over that currently allowed in the regulations. Improvements in pipeline technology assessment methodology, maintenance practices, and management processes over the past twenty-five years have significantly reduced the risk of failure in pipelines and necessitate updating the standards that govern the MAOP. This rule generates significant public benefits by reducing the number and consequences of potential incidents and boosting the potential capacity and efficiency of pipeline infrastructure, while promoting rigorous life-cycle maintenance and investment in improved pipe technology.
# C_2007056EN.01002602.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2007 — Georgia-Pacific v OHIM (embossed motif)

(Case T-283/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Embossed motif - Refusal of registration - Distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2007/C 56/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Georgia-Pacific Sàrl (represented by: R. Delorey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Rassat, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the first Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 May 2004 (Case R 493/2003-1) regarding registration of a three-dimensional mark consisting of an embossed motif.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant, Georgia-Pacific Sàrl, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant, Georgia-Pacific Sàrl, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

1

---
## 2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-16-2006 

# In Re: D on R

ich a r d s P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-5516

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" I n Re: D on R

ich a r d s " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1099. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1099

## HPS-23 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 05-5516

________________ IN RE: DON RICHARDS Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands (Related to D.V.I. Civil No. 01-cv-00212 )

_____________________________________ Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro. January 27, 2006 Before: CHIEF JUDGESCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES . Filed May 16, 2006

_____________________ OPINION

_______________________ PER CURIAM. Don Richards petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the District Court of the Virgin Islands to rule on his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate or correct his conviction. As the District Court denied the § 2255 motion on April 26, 2006, we will deny the instant petition as moot.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 11506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4615]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 
(BOEMRE)


Cancellation of Oil and Gas Lease Sale 219 in the Cook Inlet 
Planning Area on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 
Interior.

ACTION: Cancellation of Cook Inlet Lease Sale 219.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior has decided to cancel Cook 
Inlet Sale 219 that is scheduled to occur in the Revised Program for 
2007-2012. Cancellation of Sale 219 due to lack of interest is 
necessary to allow sufficient time to gather new baseline data for 
environmental review, analysis, and identification of mitigating 
measures. The time will also be used to further develop and implement 
measures to improve the safety of oil and gas development in Federal 
waters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Renee Orr, BOEMRE, Chief, Leasing 
Division, at (703) 787-1215 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea988f848f8fc4859898aa88858f87988fc48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdcfd8d3d8d893d2cfcffddfd2d8d0cfd893dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 25, 2011.
Michael R. Bromwich,
Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-4615 Filed 3-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2006294EN.01004502.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/45

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2006 — Hewlett-Packard v Commission

(Case T-313/04) (1)

1

(Refusal of repayment of import duties - Action for annulment - Importation of printers and printer cartridges from Singapore - Particular circumstances - Equity clause - Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92)

(2006/C 294/95)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett-Packard GmbH (Böblingen, Germany) (represented by: F. Boulanger, M. Mrozek and M. Tervooren, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision REM 06/02 of 7 April 2004 advising the German authorities that the applicant should not receive repayment of import duties on printers and printer cartridges from Singapore.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

1

---