alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 158.101 Purpose. ( a ) *Cybersecurity Talent Management System.* This part contains regulations establishing the Cybersecurity Talent Management System (CTMS) and the resulting DHS Cybersecurity Service (DHS-CS). CTMS is designed to recruit and retain individuals with the qualifications necessary to execute the DHS cybersecurity mission and is also designed to adapt to changes in cybersecurity work, the cybersecurity talent market, and the DHS cybersecurity mission.
( b ) *DHS Cybersecurity Service.* Under this part, the Secretary or designee establishes and manages the DHS Cybersecurity Service (DHS-CS) described in subpart B of this part.
( c ) *Regulations & policy.* The regulations in this part provide the policy framework for establishing and administering CTMS, and establishing and managing the DHS-CS. The Secretary or designee implements this part through CTMS policy defined in § 158.104.
# C_2007095EN.01001302.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2007 — T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret AŞ v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA

(Case C-171/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier national trade mark - Likelihood of confusion)

(2007/C 95/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret AŞ (represented by: M. Francetti and F. Jacobacci, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard Monguiral and J. Novais Gonçalves, Agents), Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA (represented by: J.-P. Simon, avocet)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 January 2005 in Case T-147/03 Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) annulling, upon application by the proprietor of the national figurative mark QUANTIEME for goods in Classes 14 and 18, Decision R 109/2002-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2003 which annulled the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of the figurative Community trade mark QUANTUM for goods in Class 14

Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

1

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0280. TYRELL MALEEK CORLEY v. THE STATE.

This appeal was docketed on September 9, 2021, and appellant’s brief

containing an enumeration of errors was due by September 29, 2019. As appellant

has failed to timely file a brief and enumeration of errors with this Court, the appeal

is DISMISSED for failure to file a brief and enumeration of errors within the period

ordered by this Court. See Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a). 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order directly to Mr. Corley. Mr.

Corley’s counsel (John Forbes) shall also receive a copy of this order, and Mr. Forbes

is directed to forward an additional copy to Mr. Corley. Mr. Forbes shall bear the

primary responsibility of informing Mr. Corley of the disposition of this appeal and

his options as a result. Pursuant to Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 875 (2) (452 SE2d

756) (1995), and Reese v. State, 216 Ga. App. 773, 775 (456 SE2d 271) (1995), Mr.

Corley is advised as follows:

Ms. Corley, your appeal has been DISMISSED because no brief and

enumeration of errors were filed. If you have decided you do not want to appeal, you

need not do anything more. However, if you do still want to appeal, you may have

the right to an OUT-OF-TIME APPEAL -- but YOU MUST TAKE ACTION to

exercise that right by moving for an out-of-time appeal in the trial court. If your

motion for an out-of-time appeal is granted, the trial courtshould appoint an attorney

for you if you want one and cannot pay for one. If your motion for an out-of time

appeal is denied, you have the right to appeal that denial to this Court within thirty

October 06, 2021
days of the trial court’s decision.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/06/2021
# C_2007048EN.01000201.xml

| 2.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/2

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

3,56 % on 1 March 2007

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 March 2007

(2007/C 48/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3225 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 155,42 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4507 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67365 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2777 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6100 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,28 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1090 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5794 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,225 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 256,20 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7068 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9215 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3919 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,436 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8928 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6814 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5497 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3312 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9036 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0180 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 245,46 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7075 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2408 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3400 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 104,18 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6380 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,009 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,5490 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,678 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3225

JPY

Japanese yen

155,42

DKK

Danish krone

7,4507

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67365

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2777

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6100

ISK

Iceland króna

88,28

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1090

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5794

CZK

Czech koruna

28,225

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

256,20

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7068

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9215

RON

Romanian leu

3,3919

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,436

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8928

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6814

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5497

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3312

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9036

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0180

KRW

South Korean won

1 245,46

ZAR

South African rand

9,7075

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2408

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3400

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 104,18

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6380

PHP

Philippine peso

64,009

RUB

Russian rouble

34,5490

THB

Thai baht

44,678

---

(1)

1

Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source:

---
Exhibit 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Crowley, Chief Financial 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/JOHN P. CROWLEYJohn P. Crowley Chief Financial Officer |  | 
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
| |  | August 12, 2005                                           |  | 

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
#### State of Connecticut *v.*John Reid

*W. Paul Flynn,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

*Alfonse G. Fasano,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued April 2

decided April 2, 1974

The defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment of the trial court and to enter judgment for the defendant in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted unless the state files its brief on or before June 3,1974.
# C_2007049EN.01000101.xml

| 3.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4535 — Charterhouse/Vivarte)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 49/01)

On 26 February 2007, 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 32007M4535. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4535. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7493

EDDIE LEE MCCALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRED HENDERSON MOORE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-97-1659-2-18-AJ)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Lee McCall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant’s case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to

object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23.01

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements ofSteven Madden, Ltd. on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-117667, 333-117666, 333-106746,333-98067, 333-68712, 333-40924, 333-86903, 333-59995, 333-39335, 333-16381,333-05773 and 333-138584), Form S-3 (No. 333-91127) and Form S-3/A (Nos.333-46441 and 333-59295), of our report dated March 10, 2008, with respect toour audits of the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2007,and 2006 and for the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007,and our report dated March 10, 2008 on our audit of the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting of Steven Madden, Ltd. and subsidiaries, whichare included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

We alsoconsent to the reference to our firm in the Registration Statements on Form S-3and Form S-3/A under the caption “Experts”.

/s/ Eisner LLPNew York, New YorkMarch 10, 2008

----
§ 7.8 Ex parte communications in enforcement actions. In order to avoid the possibility of prejudice, real or apparent, to the public interest in enforcement actions pending before the Commission pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109: ( a ) Except to the extent required for the disposition of enforcement matters as required by law (as, for example, during the normal course of an investigation or a conciliation effort), no Commissioner or member of any Commissioner's staff shall make or entertain any *ex parte* communications.
( b ) The prohibition of this section shall apply from the time a complaint is filed with the Commission pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(1) or from the time that the Commission determines on the basis of information ascertained in the normal course of its supervisory responsibilities that it has reason to believe that a violation has occurred or may occur pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(2), and such prohibition shall remain in force until the Commission has concluded all action with respect to the enforcement matter in question.
( c ) Any written communication prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall be delivered to the General Counsel, who shall place the communication in the case file.
( d ) A Commissioner or member of any Commissioner's staff involved in handling enforcement actions who receives an offer to make an oral communication or any communication concerning any enforcement action pending before the Commission as described in paragraph (a) of this section, shall decline to listen to such communication. If unsuccessful in preventing the communication, the Commissioner or employee shall advise the person making the communication that he or she will not consider the communication and shall prepare a statement setting forth the substance and circumstances of the communication. Within 48 hours of receipt of the communication, the Commissioner or any member of any Commissioner's staff shall prepare a statement setting forth the substance and circumstances of the communication and shall deliver the statement to the General Counsel for placing in the file in the manner set forth in paragraph (c) of this section.
( e ) Additional rules governing *ex parte* communications made in connection with Commission enforcement actions are found at 11 CFR 111.22. Rules governing *ex parte* communications made in connection with public funding, Commission audits, litigation, rulemakings, and advisory opinions are found at 11 CFR part 201.
[76 FR 70330, Nov. 14, 2011 , as amended at 79 FR 77844, Dec. 29, 2014]
#### School City of Anderson *v.*Lammert et al.

[No. 12,121.

Filed March 19, 1925.

Rehearing denied June 24, 1925.]

Master and *Servant.—Industrial Board’s finding on a question of fact is binding on*appeal.—In a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the question of whether the injured person was an employee of the defendant is a question of fact for the Industrial Board, and its finding must be accepted on appeal.

From Industrial Board of Indiana.

Application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for compensation by Katherine M. Lammert and others against School City of Anderson. From award for claimants, the defendant appeals. *Affirmed.*By the first division.

*Diven, Divert & Campbell,*for appellant.

*Charles E. Henderson*and *Clarence E. Wysong,*for appellees.

Enloe, J.

From an award of compensation to' appellees on account of the accidental death of the husband and father of appellees, this appeal is prosecuted, the contention of appellant being that said deceased was not an employee of appellant.

Putting the matter in its most favorable aspect as regards the contention of appellant, the question was one of fact for the Industrial Board, and upon this record, we cannot disturb its finding. Affirmed.
-  Home 

# In This Section

                      -  Newsroom 
                      -  Press Releases 
                      -  Reports to Congress 
                      -  Congressional Testimony 
                      -  Speeches 

## Contact Us

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

**Email:**phmsa.publicaffairs@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4831****Fax:**202-366-7431**

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

# Report to Congress - Lithium Battery Safety Working Group

Report to Congress on Lithium Battery Safety Working Group.pdf (722.13 KB)

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
# C_2007096EN.01004003.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/40

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

(Case F-71/06) (1)

1

(Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2004 appraisal procedure - GIP of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)

(2007/C 96/84)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curall and H. Kraemer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report in respect of the period 1/1/2004 — 31/12/2004

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

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

1

---
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1086-120, 12th Floor550 South Tyron StreetCharlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**  Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2012, by and among RBS Commercial Funding Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Certificate Administrator, Tax Administrator and Custodian, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS 2012-C7 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 11.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that: 1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.  /s/ Daniel BoberDaniel BoberExecutive Vice President Wells Fargo Bank   
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A |  (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------|
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-50010 onForm S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-149005 and 333-150055 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 16, 2007 (March 14, 2008 as to Note 14), relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule of Exactech, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the retrospective adjustment of the 2006 financial statements for a change incomposition of reportable segments discussed in Note 14) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Jacksonville, Florida 

March 13, 2009