alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 327.4 Foreign inspection certificate requirements. ( a ) Except as provided in § 327.16, each consignment imported into the United States must have an electronic foreign inspection certification or a paper foreign inspection certificate issued by an official of the foreign government agency responsible for the inspection and certification of the product.
( b ) An official of the foreign government must certify that any product described on any official certificate was produced in accordance with the regulatory requirements in § 327.2.
( c ) The electronic foreign inspection certification must be in English, be transmitted directly to FSIS before the product's arrival at the official import inspection establishment, and be available to import inspection personnel.
( d ) The paper foreign inspection certificate must accompany each consignment; be submitted to import inspection personnel at the official import inspection establishment; be in English; bear the official seal of the foreign government responsible for the inspection of the product, and the name, title, and signature of the official authorized to issue inspection certificates for products imported to the United States.
( e ) The electronic foreign inspection certification and paper foreign inspection certificate must contain: ( 1 ) The date;
( 2 ) The foreign country of export and the producing foreign establishment number;
( 3 ) The species used to produce the product and the source country and foreign establishment number, if the source materials originate from a country other than the exporting country;
( 4 ) The product's description, including the process category, the product category, and the product group;
( 5 ) The name and address of the importer or consignee;
( 6 ) The name and address of the exporter or consignor;
( 7 ) The number of units (pieces or containers) and the shipping or identification mark on the units;
( 8 ) The net weight of each lot; and
( 9 ) Any additional information the Administrator requests to determine whether the product is eligible to be imported into the United States.
[79 FR 56233, Sept. 19, 2014]
# C_2007129EN.01000401.xml

| 9.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/4

---

Appeal brought on 23 February 2007 by Ferrero Deutschland GmbH against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) on 15 December 2006 in Case T-310/04 Ferrero Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Cornu SA Fontain

(Case C-108/07 P)

(2007/C 129/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Schaeffer, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Cornu SA Fontain

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2006 in Case T-314/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu SA Fontain; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2006 in Case T-314/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu SA Fontain;

Ferrero Deutschland

OHIM

Cornu SA Fontain

| — | order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward a single plea in law in support of its appeal, alleging an infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance and, more specifically, that it incorrectly interpreted Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (1). In that connection, the applicant puts forward the following five arguments.

1

First, the Court failed to take account of the fact that the salted and sweet goods concerned are produced and marketed to a relevant extent by the same undertakings, including the intervener itself. Second, the Court committed an error of law by holding that the goods concerned are only slightly similar, whereas, in this case, it should have found at least an average degree of similarity. Third, the Court committed an error of law by attributing only ‘a certain degree of similarity ’to the marks ‘Ferrero ’and ‘Ferro’, whereas the arguments that the Court itself put forward in its judgment should have led to the conclusion that those marks have an average degree or even high degree of similarity. Fourth, the Court failed to take sufficient account of the documents submitted by the appellant in order to highlight the highly distinctive character of the mark ‘Ferrero’. Finally, in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the Court committed an error of law by failing to take account of the many factors mentioned in the seventh recital in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

---

(1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 10.17

                               LEASE AMENDMENT #7

ORIGINAL LEASE DATE:    March 27, 1995

LEASE AMENDMENT DATE:           September 8, 1998

LANDLORD:                       SPIEKER PROPERTIES, L.P.
                                a California limited partnership,
                                Successor in interest to 999 BW Corporation,
                                a Delaware corporation

TENANT:                         ACTUATE SOFTWARE CORPORATION
                                a California Corporation

Landlord and Tenant, by executing this Lease Amendment #7 as provided do hereby
further amend the Original Lease referred to above, as previously amended in
Lease Amendments #1 through #6, (the "Lease") as follows:

1.   Premises
     --------

     The Premises of the Lease as defined per the Original Lease Agreement and
     as previously amended, shall be amended such that effective December 1,
     1998, approximately 5,491 square feet of rentable space on the second floor
     of 999 Baker Way, known as suite #200, shall be added to the Original Lease
     Agreement.  Total square footage shall increase from 14,939 to 20,430
     rentable square feet.

2.   Rental
     ------

     Rent for the Premises shall be as follows:

     12/01/98-05/31/00   $58,225.50 per month.  In addition to the new base
                         monthly rental above, Tenant shall be responsible for
                         its proportionate share of increases in operating
                         expenses over the base year per Paragraph 3 of this
                         Lease Agreement.

     06/01/00-05/31/02   $60,268.50 per month.  In addition to the new base
                         monthly rental above, Tenant shall be responsible for
                         its proportionate share of increases in operating
                         expenses over the base year per Paragraph 3 of this
                         Lease Agreement.

3.   Proportionate Share
     -------------------

     Effective December 1, 1998, Tenant's proportionate share shall increase
     from 23.76% to 32.50%.

4.   Tenant Improvements
     -------------------

     Tenant shall accept the Premises in "as-is" condition.

All other terms and conditions of the Lease shall apply to this Lease Amendment
#7.  Agreed to this 28 day of September, 1998.
                    --        ---------       

LANDLORD:
-------- 
SPIEKER PROPERTIES, L.P.
a California limited partnership

By:  Spieker Properties, Inc.
     a Maryland corporation,
     its general partner

By:  /s/ Peter H. Schnugg
     --------------------
     Peter H. Schnugg
<PAGE>
 
Its:   Senior Vice President
       ---------------------
Date:  9/28/98
       -------

TENANT:
-------
ACTUATE SOFTWARE CORPORATION
a California Corporation

By:  /s/ D A Gaudreau
     ----------------
     Dan Gaudreau

Its: Vice President of Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 9/16/98
      -------
# C_2010260EN.01002803.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/28

---

Action brought on 30 July 2010 — Esders v Commission

(Case F-62/10)

()

2010/C 260/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jürgen Esders (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodriguez, M. Vandenbussche and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision reassigning the applicant to Brussels as part of the 2010 rotation.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare this action to be admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare this action to be admissible;

| — | annul the appointing authority’s decision of 27 July 2010 reassigning the applicant to Brussels as from 1 September 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority’s decision of 27 July 2010 reassigning the applicant to Brussels as from 1 September 2010;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2007095EN.01000401.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2007 — Gestoras Pro Amnistía, Juan Mari Olano Olano, Julen Zelarain Errasti v Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-354/04 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - European Union - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Common Positions 2001/931/CFSP, 2002/340/CFSP and 2002/462/CFSP - Measures concerning persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

(2007/C 95/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Gestoras Pro Amnistía, Juan Mari Olano Olano, Julen Zelarain Errasti, (represented by: D. Rouget, avocat)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and M. Bauer, Agents), Kingdom of Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2004 in Case T-332/02 Gestoras Pro Amnistía and Others v Council of the European Union [2004], not published in the ECR, dismissing the applicants' action seeking damages in respect of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the inclusion of Gestoras Pro Amnistía in the list drawn up under the legislation on the fight against terrorism.

Gestoras Pro Amnistía and Others

Council of the European Union

Gestoras Pro Amnistía

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Gestoras Pro-Amnistía, Mr. Olano Olano and Mr. Zelarain Errasti to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gestoras Pro-Amnistía, Mr. Olano Olano and Mr. Zelarain Errasti to pay the costs.

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

1

---
5/20/2011 8:59 AM at 8:59 AM

1

Steve Edris

From: Dan Wakefield

Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 5:09 PM

To: Eric Ryder

Subject: RE: Stack test data

There was one FF check on the 16th during the testing; it was 11%. 

Daniel Wakefield

Environmental Manager

Thermafiber, Inc.

3711 Mill Street

Wabash, Indiana 46992

Phone: 260-563-2111 Ext. 226

Fax: 260-569-9253

E-mail: dwakefield@thermafiber.com

From: Eric Ryder 

Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:02 AM 

To: Dan Wakefield 

Subject: RE: Stack test data

Check with Jay on records for the period. We were aware of an upset condition in the binder mixing room. We should 

have something on file. 

Eric Ryder 

Plant Manager 

Thermafiber 

Phone: (260) 563-2111 x293 

Fax: (260) 563-7022 

Email: eryder@thermafiber.com

From: Dan Wakefield 

Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:00 AM 

To: Eric Ryder 

Subject: RE: Stack test data

Free formaldehyde samples on mixed binder during the test period were not taken. It would have been a good idea for our 

use. IDEM requires data on free formaldehyde from the latest resin shipment used which was 7.3%. 

Daniel Wakefield

Environmental Manager

Thermafiber, Inc.

3711 Mill Street

Wabash, Indiana 46992

Phone: 260-563-2111 Ext. 226

Fax: 260-569-9253

E-mail: dwakefield@thermafiber.com

From: Eric Ryder 

Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 10:42 AM 

To: Dan Wakefield 

Subject: RE: Stack test data

Can you add binder free formaldehyde results. 

Eric Ryder 
5/20/2011 8:59 AM at 8:59 AM

2

Plant Manager 

Thermafiber 

Phone: (260) 563-2111 x293 

Fax: (260) 563-7022 

Email: eryder@thermafiber.com

From: Dan Wakefield 

Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:56 AM 

To: Eric Ryder 

Subject: Stack test data

I believe you wanted this info. 

Daniel Wakefield

Environmental Manager

Thermafiber, Inc.

3711 Mill Street

Wabash, Indiana 46992

Phone: 260-563-2111 Ext. 226

Fax: 260-569-9253

E-mail: dwakefield@thermafiber.com
---




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 Proteo, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Birge Bargmann, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to her 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.





Date: May 12, 2011
 
 /s/ Birge BargmannBirge BargmannCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO PROTEO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY PROTEO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.








This Certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 15(d) and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00022

- CV

JAVIER GONZALEZ, IRM A

GONZALEZ AND ALL OCC UPANTS APPELLANTS

V.

JMH VENTURES, INC. APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On March 9, 2011 , we notified appellant s that the trial court clerk

responsible for preparing the record in this appeal had informed this court that

arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk = s reco rd as required by

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2).

We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

appellant s , within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk = s record

and provided thi s court with proof of payment.

Because appellant s have not made payment arrangements for the clerk = s

record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want

of prosecution. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. S ee Tex. R. App. P.

37.3(b), 42.3(b).

Appellant s shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: April 7, 2011
### Part E—Consumer Leases
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
**CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
     This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements ofSection 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and CriminalProcedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any personfor any other purpose.
     The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of S1 Corporation (the“Company”), hereby certifies as follows:
     To the knowledge of the undersigned, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company (the “Report”), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
     Dated this 10th day of May 2004.              /s/ Matthew Hale   Matthew Hale, Chief Financial Officer
### §5112. Sexual assault and sexual harassment in the Coast Guard

(a) In General.—Not later than January 15 of each year, the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall submit a report on the sexual assaults and incidents of sexual harassment involving members of the Coast Guard to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.

(b) Contents.—The report required under subsection (a) shall contain the following:

(1) The number of sexual assaults and incidents of sexual harassment against members of the Coast Guard, and the number of sexual assaults and incidents of sexual harassment by members of the Coast Guard, that were reported to military officials during the year covered by such report, and the number of the cases so reported that were substantiated.

(2) A synopsis of, and the disciplinary action taken in, each substantiated case.

(3) The policies, procedures, and processes implemented by the Secretary concerned during the year covered by such report in response to incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment involving members of the Coast Guard concerned.

(4) A plan for the actions that are to be taken in the year following the year covered by such report on the prevention of and response to sexual assault and sexual harassment involving members of the Coast Guard concerned.

(5)(A) The number of instances in which a covered individual was accused of misconduct or crimes considered collateral to the investigation of a sexual assault committed against the individual.

(B) The number of instances in which adverse action was taken against a covered individual who was accused of collateral misconduct or crimes as described in subparagraph (A).

(C) The percentage of investigations of sexual assaults that involved an accusation or adverse action against a covered individual as described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).

(D) In this paragraph, the term "covered individual" means an individual who is identified as a victim of a sexual assault in the case files of a military criminal investigative organization.

(Added and amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8501(a)(7), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4745.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 111–281, title II, §217, Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2917, formerly set out as a note under section 504 of this title, was redesignated as this section, transferred to appear after section 5111 of this title, and amended so that the enumerator, section catchline, typeface, and typestyle conformed to those appearing in other sections of this title by Pub. L. 116–283, §8501(a)(7)(A).

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283, §8501(a)(7)(A), (B)(i), redesignated section 217 of Pub. L. 111–281 as this section, made technical changes to conform this section to other sections of this title, and substituted section catchline for former section catchline "Report on Sexual Assaults in the Coast Guard". See Codification note above.

Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 116–283, §8501(a)(7)(B)(ii), added par. (5).
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications for Grants to Help Repair Housing in Rural Communities

WASHINGTON, June 25, 2018 – Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Anne Hazlett today 

announced that USDA is seeking applications for grants to make housing repairs for low- and very-low-income 

rural residents. The grants are being provided through USDA’s Housing Preservation Grant program.

Eligible applicants include town or county governments, public agencies, federally recognized Indian tribes, 

and nonprofit and faith-based organizations. USDA does not provide funding directly to homeowners under this 

program. For additional eligibility information, see page 29529 of the June 25, 2018 Federal Register.

Applications are due by 5:00 p.m. local time on August 9, 2018 at the state office where the project will be 

located. For a list of offices, visit the state office website. 

USDA encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the report to the President from 

the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity to help improve life in rural America. Applicants are 

encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results in helping rural communities build robust and 

sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, partnerships and innovation. Key 

strategies include:

• Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America

• Developing the Rural Economy

• Harnessing Technological Innovation

• Supporting a Rural Workforce

• Improving Quality of Life

#
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-14T18:17:02-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office