alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-  Home 
-  Safety Awareness 
-  PERI 

# In This Section

                      -  Safety Awareness Overview 
                      -  Pipeline Leak Recognition and What to Do 
                      -  Excavation Enforcement Final Rule                          -  Overview 
                        -  Rule Language 
                        -  Determinations of Adequacy 
                        -  Frequently Asked Questions 
                      -  Pipeline Emergency Responders Initiative (PERI)                          -  Overview 
                        -  PERI FAQs 
                        -  Eastern Region 
                        -  Southern Region 
                        -  Central Region 
                        -  Southwest Region 
                        -  Western Region 
                      -  Safety Awareness Reports Search 
                      -  Historical Pipeline Incidents 
                      -  Pipeline Failure Investigation Reports 
                      -  Marine Damage Prevention 

## Pipeline Emergency Responders Initiative

U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**phmsa.pipelinesafety@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4595**

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

# PERIs in PHMSA's Western Region

Interested in starting a PERI in your state and your state is not listed? Contact your state's Community Liaison to inquire about a PERI.
# C_2007117EN.01003702.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/37

---

Action brought on 26 March 2007 — Sundholm v Commission

(Case F-27/07)

(2007/C 117/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of 2 June 2006 establishing the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, adopted pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 20 April 2005 in Case T-86/04 Sundholm v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 2 June 2006 establishing the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, adopted pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 20 April 2005 in Case T-86/04 Sundholm v Commission;

Sundholm

Commission

| — | order the defendant to pay, at that stage of the proceedings, EUR 1 by way of damages for non-material loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay, at that stage of the proceedings, EUR 1 by way of damages for non-material loss;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on the breach of Article 233 EC and of the obligation to state reasons inasmuch as it is not possible from the contested decision to know how the grounds of the abovementioned judgment were taken into account.

Moreover, the applicant asserts that the contested decision, first, failed to take into account the aims and objectives pursued by the new Career Development Review System, and, second, is vitiated by inconsistencies between the comments and marks awarded.

Finally, the applicant relies on the breach of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the facts on which his appraisal was based were not disclosed to him either when they were produced or in the context of the appraisal procedure.

---
#### § 9.32 Penalty procedures.

Agencies shall impose and collect civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3803 (except subsection (c)), 3804, 3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, and 3812, insofar as these provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements in this part.
### §3759. Presale reinstatement

#### (a) Withdrawal and cancellation

#### (1) In general

Except as provided in sections 3756(b) and 3760(c) of this title, the foreclosure commissioner shall withdraw the security property from foreclosure and cancel the foreclosure sale only if—

(A) the Secretary directs the foreclosure commissioner to do so before or at the time of the sale;

(B) the foreclosure commissioner finds, upon application of the mortgagor not less than 3 days before the date of the sale, that the default or defaults upon which the foreclosure is based did not exist at the time of service of the notice of default and foreclosure sale; or

(C)(i) in the case of a foreclosure involving a monetary default, there is tendered to the foreclosure commissioner before public auction is completed the entire amount of principal and interest which would be due if payments under the mortgage had not been accelerated;

(ii) in the case of a foreclosure involving a nonmonetary default, the foreclosure commissioner, upon application of the mortgagor before the date of foreclosure sale, finds that such default is cured; and

(iii) there is tendered to the foreclosure commissioner before public auction is completed—

(I) all amounts due under the mortgage agreement (excluding additional amounts which would have been due if mortgage payments had been accelerated);

(II) all amounts of expenditures secured by the mortgage; and

(III) all costs of foreclosure incurred for which payment from the proceeds of foreclosure is provided in section 3761 of this title.

#### (2) Discretionary noncancellation

The Secretary may refuse to cancel a foreclosure sale pursuant to paragraph (1)(C) if the current mortgagor or owner of record has, on one or more previous occasions, caused a foreclosure of the mortgage, commenced pursuant to this chapter or otherwise, to be canceled by curing a default.

#### (b) Opportunity of Secretary to dispute withdrawal

Before withdrawing the security property from foreclosure under subparagraph (B) or (C) of subsection (a)(1), the foreclosure commissioner shall afford the Secretary a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate why the security property should not be so withdrawn.

#### (c) Effect of cancellation

#### (1) Mortgage unaffected

In any case in which a foreclosure commenced under this chapter is canceled, the mortgage shall continue in effect as though acceleration had not occurred.

#### (2) Commencement of new foreclosure sale

Cancellation of a foreclosure sale under this chapter shall have no effect on the commencement of a subsequent foreclosure proceeding under this chapter.

#### (d) Notice of cancellation

The foreclosure commissioner shall file a notice of cancellation in the same place and manner provided for filing the notice of default and foreclosure sale in section 3758 of this title.

(Pub. L. 103–327, title II, Sept. 28, 1994, 108 Stat. 2316.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section 810 of title VIII of S. 2281, One Hundred Third Congress, as reported July 13, 1994, which was enacted into law by Pub. L. 103–327.
Exhibit 32.1

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 on Form 10-Q of FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eugene B. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/EUGENE B. JOHNSONEugene B. Johnson Chief Executive OfficerAugust 7, 2008


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
### §2184. Communications with stockholders

#### (a) Provision of stockholder lists

#### (1) In general

A Farm Credit System bank or association shall provide to a stockholder of the bank or association a current list of stockholders of the bank or association not later than 7 calendar days after the date on which the bank or association receives a written request for the stockholder list from the stockholder.

#### (2) Conditions

As a condition of providing a stockholder list under paragraph (1), the bank or association may require that the stockholder agree and certify in writing that the stockholder will—

(A) use the list exclusively for communicating with stockholders for permissible purposes; and

(B) not make the list available to any person, other than the stockholder's attorney or accountant, without first obtaining the written consent of the institution.

#### (b) Alternative communications

#### (1) Request to issue

As an alternative to receiving a list of stockholders, a stockholder may request the institution to mail or otherwise furnish to each stockholder a communication for a permissible purpose on behalf of the requesting stockholder.

#### (2) When permissible

Alternative communications may be used, at the discretion of the requesting stockholder, if the requester agrees to defray the reasonable costs of the communication. If the requester decides to exercise this option, the institution shall provide the requester with a written estimate of the costs of handling and mailing the communication as soon as is practicable after receipt of the stockholder's request to furnish the communication.

(Pub. L. 92–181, title IV, §4.12A, as added Pub. L. 100–233, title IV, §420, Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1653; amended Pub. L. 115–334, title V, §5411(21), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4681.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 115–334 added par. (1) and struck out former par. (1). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "Within 7 days after receipt of a written request by a stockholder, a bank for cooperatives, Federal land bank association, or production credit association shall provide a current list of its stockholders to such requesting stockholder."
### §3022. Authorization of additional appropriations; restrictions on use

In addition to appropriations specifically authorized in this chapter, there are authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, and for each of the two succeeding fiscal years, ending September 30, 1980, and September 30, 1981, such sums as may be necessary: Provided, That none of these appropriated sums shall be used to retire any indebtedness of the Bank incurred pursuant to section 3017 of this title. Any sums so appropriated shall remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 95–351, title I, §112, Aug. 20, 1978, 92 Stat. 510.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,516
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,651
<INVENTORY>                                      2,289
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,894
<PP&E>                                          81,688
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 622,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,525
<BONDS>                                        246,240
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           313
<OTHER-SE>                                     278,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   622,656
<SALES>                                        142,756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               142,756
<CGS>                                           59,253
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,426
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    87
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,019
<INCOME-TAX>                                       691
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,156
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,828)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
# C_2007095EN.01000601.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Kaul GmbH, Bayer AG

(Case C-29/05 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Submission of new facts and evidence in support of an appeal brought before the Board of Appeal of OHIM)

(2007/C 95/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Kaul GmbH (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte), Bayer AG

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2004 in Case T-164/02 Kaul v OHIM and Bayer, by which the Court of First Instance annulled Decision R 782/2000-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2002 relating to opposition proceedings between Kaul GmbH and Bayer AG — Examination of the opposition — Examination of the facts by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Articles 43(2) and 74(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Kaul

OHIM and Bayer

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 November 2004 in Case T-164/02 Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 November 2004 in Case T-164/02 Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL);

Kaul

OHIM

Bayer (ARCOL)

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 March 2002 (Case R 782/2000-3); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 March 2002 (Case R 782/2000-3);

| 3. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings both at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings both at first instance and on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

1

---
# C_2007129EN.01002301.xml

| 9.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/23

---

Action brought on 13 April 2007 — Last Minute Network v OHIM — Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR)

(Case T-115/07)

(2007/C 129/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Last Minute Network Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Quash in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the respondent, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), dated 8 February 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Quash in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the respondent, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), dated 8 February 2007;

| — | declare CTM No 1 552 231 invalid in respect of class 16; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare CTM No 1 552 231 invalid in respect of class 16;

| — | award the costs against the respondent. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs against the respondent.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘LAST MINUTE TOUR ’for products and services in classes 16, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 552 231

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Last Minute Tour SpA

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national non-registered word mark ‘LASTMINUTE.COM ’for services in classes 39 and 42

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark for the services in classes 39 and 42 and rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity for the goods in class 16

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal lodged by the applicant asking the partial annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision in order to obtain a declaration of invalidity also for the goods in class 16

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly decided that the applicant's non registered trade mark did not confer on him the right to prohibit the use in the United Kingdom of the trade mark applied for and as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied the test to establish likelihood of confusion.

Pleas in law:

---
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4538



# 
M ICHAEL S HANNON M OORE ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-99-58) Submitted: December 21, 2000 Decided: January 11, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Michael A. Bragg, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Rick A. Mountcastle, Assistant United States Attorney, Andrew Russell, Third-Year Law Student, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Michael Shannon Moore appeals his seventy-eight-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to five counts of mailing threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 876 (West 2000). He contends that the district court should have grouped the offenses under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3D1.2(c) (1998). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. When considering the district court’s application of the guidelines, we review factual findings for clear error and legal interpretations de novo. United States v. Colton , 231 F.3d 890, 911 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Daughtrey , 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting that application of grouping principles in USSG § 3D1.2 moves closer to de novo review). The plain language of the commentary to USSG § 2A6.1 provides that "multiple counts involving making a threatening . . . communication to the same victim are grouped together under § 3D1.2[,] . . . [but] [m]ultiple counts involving different victims are not to be grouped under § 3D1.2." USSG § 2A6.1, comment. (n.2). Because we "accept the Application Notes as authoritative unless they are inconsistent with the Constitution, a federal statute, or a plain reading of the Guidelines," United States v. Harris , 128 F.3d 850, 852 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing Stinson v. United States , 508 U.S. 36, 45 (1993)), and because each of the counts to which Moore pled guilty involved a separate victim, we find that the district court properly declined to group the offenses. See United States v. Achiekwelu , 112F.3d 747, 755 (4th Cir. 1997) ("We must follow the clear, unambiguous language of a particular guideline unless there is a manifestation of contrary intent."). Accordingly, we affirm Moore’s sentence. We dispense with oralargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. M OORE
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements onForm S-8 (Nos. 333-118369 and 333-98331) and onForm S-3 (Nos. 333-123775, 333-102286 and 333-121133) ofTerremark Worldwide, Inc. of our report dated August 4, 2005,except for the restatement described in Note 2 to theconsolidated financial statements and the matter described in thepenultimate paragraph of Management’s Report on Internal ControlOver Financial Reporting, as to which the date is December 15,2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Miami, Florida
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of NationsRent, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:

         (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.


Date: November 14, 2002

                                       /s/ D. CLARK OGLE
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Name:  D. Clark Ogle
                                       Title: Chief Executive Officer



                                       /s/ EZRA SHASHOUA
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Name:  Ezra Shashoua
                                       Title  Executive Vice President and
                                              Chief Financial Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.