alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007082EN.01004301.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/43

---

Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Goncharov v OHIM — DSB (DSBW)

(Case T-34/07)

(2007/C 82/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Karen Goncharov (Moscow, Russian Federation) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt und A. Späth, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DSB (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 December 2006 (Case R 1330/2005-2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 December 2006 (Case R 1330/2005-2);

| — | Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant;

| — | Order DSB, should it intervene in the proceedings, to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order DSB, should it intervene in the proceedings, to pay its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Karen Goncharov.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark DSBW for services in Classes 39, 41, 43 and 44 (Application No 2 852 143).

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark DSB (Community trade mark No 2 292 290) for services in Classes 35-37, 39, 41 and 42, whereas the opposition was directed against registration in Classes 39, 41 and 43.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of Opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and grant of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal wrongly finds that the registration of the mark DSBW is precluded by Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation 40/94; (1) there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Stephen L. Spencer, Appellant, v. Charles Martyn and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mo opinion.
# C_2010161EN.01005801.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/58

---

Action brought on 16 April 2010 — Allen v Commission

(Case F-23/10)

(2010/C 161/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Finola Allen (Armação de Pera, Portugal) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision rejecting an application for recognition of serious illness.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should order:

| — | The annulment of the 30 June 2009 decision rejecting her application for recognition of serious illness and, if necessary, the annulment of the 17 July 2009 decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

The annulment of the 30 June 2009 decision rejecting her application for recognition of serious illness and, if necessary, the annulment of the 17 July 2009 decision;

| — | if needed, the annulment of the 8 January 2010 decision rejecting the Appellant's complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

if needed, the annulment of the 8 January 2010 decision rejecting the Appellant's complaint;

| — | by consequence, the recognition of serious illness for her illnesses stated in her 19 May application as complemented on 2 July 2009 and the full coverage as of 1 July 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

by consequence, the recognition of serious illness for her illnesses stated in her 19 May application as complemented on 2 July 2009 and the full coverage as of 1 July 2009;

| — | on a subsidiary basis, the coverage of the sickness insurance until 10 July 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

on a subsidiary basis, the coverage of the sickness insurance until 10 July 2009;

| — | the payment of damages evaluated ex aequo et bono and on a provisional basis at 1 Euro; |
| --- | --- |

—

the payment of damages evaluated ex aequo et bono and on a provisional basis at 1 Euro;

| — | the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
. RO a |

“ og UB og f Bi
no oB ag 1 3)

oS 238 ~ 5

TORTUGAS BANK
SCALE. 1:100,000

/
1,
Uy
Z y Y, TG// i ; Mf V7,
< y ; be i) jh WM l U((/ “y
/ sell / if lyf y Wy

ay, y bff}
\F> UW, Vay
= a Va PW ye My Ail\\\
\ N\( 7. l Ya Ny yz Aik: ) y) eZ]
== 5 yy | (NN
_ xy LM YY alk 4
<2 ifs Vy, 15 yy y Wy

W
BMW 777 AS
il LNA i) 7,
Lt iH
XL, y Ypey d

py
### §2259. State legislation

Whenever it is determined by the Farm Credit Administration, or by judicial decision, that a State law is applicable to the obligations and securities authorized to be held by the institutions of the System under this chapter, which law would provide insufficient protection or inadequate safeguards against loss in the event of default, the Farm Credit Administration may declare such obligations or securities to be ineligible as collateral for the issuance of new notes, bonds, debentures, and other obligations under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.24, formerly §5.25, Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624; renumbered §5.24, Pub. L. 99–205, title II, §203(b), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1694.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5.24 of Pub. L. 92–181 was renumbered section 5.23 and is classified to section 2258 of this title.
#### § 317.6 Approved labels to be used only on products to which they are applicable.

Labels shall be used only on products for which they are approved, and only if they have been approved for such products in accordance with § 317.3: *Provided,* That existing stocks of labels approved prior to the effective date of this section and the quantity of which has been identified to the circuit supervisor as being in storage on said date at the official establishment or other identified warehouse for the account of the operator of the official establishment may be used until such stocks are exhausted, but not later than 1 year after the effective date of this section unless such labels conform to all the requirements of this part and part 319 of this subchapter. The Administrator may upon the show of good cause grant individual extension of time as he deems necessary.
#### DENTON v. PEACOCK

No. 67P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 97

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 May 1990.
#### § 116.6 Animal records.

Complete records shall be kept for all animals at a licensed establishment. Results of tests performed, antigens or treatment administered, maintenance and production records, disposition records, necropsy records, if any, and all other pertinent records shall be included.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0013)

[39 FR 16872, May 10, 1974, as amended at 48 FR 57473, Dec. 30, 1983; 61 FR 52874, Oct. 9, 1996; 66 FR 21064, Apr. 27, 2001]
TITLE

Date

ENGINEER'S SIGNATURE

TITLE

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service

CONTRACT RIDER FOR

RUS FORMS 217, 245, & 835

NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY TO RUS CONTRACTS

THIS CONTRACT IS EXCLUSIVELY BETWEEN THE ENGINEER AND THE OWNER. 

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LANGUAGE OR PROVISION HEREIN TO THE CONTRARY, 

THIS CONTRACT DOES NOT AND IS NOT INTENDED TO CREATE ANY PRIVITY OF

CONTRACT WITH RUS, NOR TO IMPLY A CONTRACT IN LAW OR FACT. ANY

FUNDS ADVANCED BY RUS TO THE OWNER ARE INTENDED TO FINANCE THE

OWNER'S PROJECT AND NOT THIS CONTRACT. ANY APPROVALS GIVEN BY RUS

TO THE OWNER ARE SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF RUS. RUS IS NOT OBLIGATED 

TO ADVANCE LOAN FUNDS TO THE ENGINEER FOR THIS CONTRACT, NOR

INTENDS TO ASSUME, AT ANY TIME, DIRECT OBLIGATIONS FOR PAYMENT FOR

WORK, GOODS, OR OTHER PERFORMANCE UNDER THIS CONTRACT. THE

OBLIGATION TO PAY ANY AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THIS CONTRACT IS SOLELY 

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER. NOTHING HEREIN, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IS

INTENDED TO, OR SHALL CONFER UPON, ANY OTHER PERSON ANY RIGHT, 

BENEFIT, OR REMEDY OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER UNDER OR BY REASON OF

THE LOAN DOCUMENTS BETWEEN RUS AND THE OWNER. IT IS EXPRESSLY 

UNDERSTOOD BY THE ENGINEER THAT NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN OR ANY

APPROVALS PROVIDED BY RUS TO THE OWNER IS INTENDED TO BE RELIED UPON 

BY THE ENGINEER.

Date

OWNER'S SIGNATURE
**Exhibit****32.1**

**Certification of PrincipalExecutive Officer**Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or15d-14(b)of the Exchange Act

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanstar Communications Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Joseph Loggia, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| By:    |   | /s/ JOSEPH  LOGGIA            |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------|
|   |   | Joseph Loggia                 |
|   |   | *Chief Executive Officer*     |
|   |   | Date: November 15,  2004 |

 

----
# C_2007069EN.01001101.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/11

---

Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-51/07)

(2007/C 69/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2003/110/EC expired on 5 December 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 321, 6.12.2003, p. 26.

1

---
# C_2014061EN.01000801.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Klein v Commission

(Case T-309/10) (1)

1

(Non-contractual liability - Medical devices - Articles 8 and 18 of Directive 93/42/EEC - Failure of the Commission to act following notification of a decision prohibiting placing on the market - Sufficiently serious breach of a legal rule conferring rights on individuals)

2014/C 61/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Christoph Klein (Großgmain, Austria) (represented by: D. Schneider-Addae-Mensah, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents, assisted by C. Winkler, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze and N. Graf Vitzthum, and subsequently by T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for damages, on the basis of the combined provisions of Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, seeking compensation for the injury allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s breach of its obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Christoph Klein to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Christoph Klein to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Richard A. Karp, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Catapult Communications Corporation
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of Catapult Communications Corporation. By: /s/ Richard A. KarpName: Richard A. KarpTitle: Chief Executive Officer
 I,
Christopher A. Stephenson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Catapult Communications
Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Catapult Communications Corporation. By: /s/ Christopher A. StephensonName: Christopher A. StephensonTitle: Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of PrincipalFinancial Officer**

**Requiredby Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)**

**of theExchange Act**

** **

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, David W. Montgomery, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ David W.  Montgomery     |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | David W. Montgomery          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer      |
|   |                         |
|   | Date: November 14, 2005 |

 

----
# CL17 Free Chlorine Analyzer with AquaTrend Network

 Overview



###  Details



###  Parameter/Reagent



###  Downloads



###  Video



###  Accessories



###  Similar Products

Product #: 5440003 USD Price: $3,448.00 Ships within 2 weeks

Quantity 1

Add to Cart 

### Accurate, Reliable Results The Hach CL17 Chlorine Analyzer uses colorimetric DPD chemistry to monitor water c ontinuously for free or totalresidual chlorine. The CL17 is a simple, dependable and economic solution, and the preferred choice to highmaintenance instruments that require frequent calibration. The CL17 analysis method is robust and not affected by changes in chlorine concentration, sample pH, temperat ure, flow, or pressure, thus offering more accuracy and reliability than alternative instruments and technologies. 

### Simple, Predictable Maintenance Monthly routine maintenance for the CL17 can typically be performed in 15 minutes and includes changing reagents and cleaning the colorimetric cell. No special tools are re quired. For typical use, the CL17 will operate unattended for 30 days. Challenging applications may require more frequent cleaning. 

### Factory Calibrated The CL17 Chlorine Analyzer is factory calibrated. A built-i n electronic calibration curve is preprogrammed into the instrument. This instrument does not require recalibratio n unless specified by your regulatory agency for compliance reporting purposes. 

### EPA Compliant The CL17 is compliant with US EPA regulation 40 CFR 140.74, and both Method 4500-CL G and Method 334.0 can be used for measurement of residual chlorine in drinking water. 

### Pump Control Both an alarm for manual chlorine feed control and a 4-20 mA output for automatic contro l of chlorine feed pumps is available on the CL17 Analyzer.



## What's in the box Hach CL17 Chlorine Analyzers are shipped with a one-month supply of reagents, maintenance kit, installation kit, and manual. (The power cord is ordered separately.)


## Specifications Interferences: N/A Recorder Outputs: N/A N/A Relative Humidity: N/A
###### Editorial Note on Part 113

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 113 appear at 79 FR 55969, Sept. 18, 2014.

#### § 113.1 Compliance.

The regulations in this part apply to each serial or subserial of a licensed biological product manufactured in a licensed establishment and to each serial or subserial of a biological product in each shipment imported for distribution and sale.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-5043

_____________________________

PATRICK TORRE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT 

OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT 

PROGRAM and STEPHANIE LYNN 

BLANCHET,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order rendered by the Department of 

Revenue.

June 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Patrick Torre, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellees.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF11-4-001]


Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 3, 2011, the Western Area Power 
Administration, submitted its Open Access Transmission Tariff 
Compliance Filing, to be effective March 2, 2011.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cb8d8e998884a5a7a2a5ae98bebbbba4b9bf8badaeb9a8e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80c6c5d2c3cfeeece9eee5d3f5f0f0eff2f4c0e6e5f2e3aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 24, 2011.

    Dated: March 3, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5323 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

              -  Notices of Funding Opportunities 
              -  Grant Programs+                  -  Staff Contacts 
              -  Grants Process+                  -  Grants Process Overview 
                -  Application 
                -  How to Apply 
                -  Pre-Approval Requirements 
                -  Peer Review 
                -  Pre-Award 
                -  Post Award 
              -  Funding Priorities+                  -  Strategic Plan 
                -  Future Research Initiatives 
              -  Funded Research+                  -  Funded Grants  (NIH RePORTER) 
                -  Funding to Academic Institutions 
                -  Funding to Dental Schools 
                -  Funding Outcomes 
                -  Funding Policy 
                -  Research Investments & Advances 
              -  Human Subjects Research 
              -  Scientific Data Sharing 

# Funding to Academic Institutions

                    - ** 
                    - ** 
                    - ** 
                    - ** 

## Academic Institution Rank Listings*

                - Academic Institutions - FY2023
                - Academic Institutions - FY2022
                - Academic Institutions - FY2021
                - Academic Institutions - FY2020
                - Academic Institutions - FY2019
                - Academic Institutions - FY2018
                - Academic Institutions - FY2017
                - Academic Institutions - FY2016

View Archived Rank Listing of Funding to Academic Institutions

*Rank listing and dollar amounts are calculated using data entered by September 30th of each year (the end of the fiscal year), and do not reflect any revisions made after the end of the fiscal year.

### Questions?

Email questions about academic institution rank listings to: nidcrinfo@mail.nih.gov.