alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §950. Designation, powers, and accountability of deputy disbursing officials

(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (3), a disbursing official of the Coast Guard may designate a deputy disbursing official—

(A) to make payments as the agent of the disbursing official;

(B) to sign checks drawn on disbursing accounts of the Secretary of the Treasury; and

(C) to carry out other duties required under law.

(2) The penalties for misconduct that apply to a disbursing official apply to a deputy disbursing official designated under this subsection.

(3) A disbursing official may make a designation under paragraph (1) only with the approval of the Secretary.

(b)(1) If a disbursing official of the Coast Guard dies, becomes disabled, or is separated from office, a deputy disbursing official may continue the accounts and payments in the name of the former disbursing official until the last day of the second month after the month in which the death, disability, or separation occurs. The accounts and payments shall be allowed, audited, and settled as provided by law. The Secretary of the Treasury shall honor checks signed in the name of the former disbursing official in the same way as if the former disbursing official had continued in office.

(2) The deputy disbursing official, and not the former disbursing official or the estate of the former disbursing official, is liable for the actions of the deputy disbursing official under this subsection.

(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), this section does not apply to the Coast Guard when section 2773 of title 10 applies to the Coast Guard by reason of the operation of the Coast Guard as a service in the Navy.

(2) A designation of a deputy disbursing official under subsection (a) that is made while the Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy continues in effect for purposes of section 2773 of title 10 while the Coast Guard operates as a service in the Navy unless and until the designation is terminated by the disbursing official who made the designation or an official authorized to approve such a designation under subsection (a)(3) of such section.

(Added Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title X, §1009(a)(2)(A), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2634, §673; amended Pub. L. 107–296, title XVII, §1704(a), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2314; Pub. L. 112–213, title II, §217(11), Dec. 20, 2012, 126 Stat. 1558; renumbered §950, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §107(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4205.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 673 of this title as this section.

2012—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 112–213 struck out "of Homeland Security (when the Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy)" after "Secretary".

2002—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 107–296 substituted "of Homeland Security" for "of Transportation".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective on the date of transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department of Homeland Security, see section 1704(g) of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as a note under section 101 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
directed Stuart to show cause why he should not be temporarily 

suspended and the matter referred for discipline. Stuart failed to respond 

to our show cause order. 

SCR 111(9) provides: 

Upon receipt of a petition demonstrating that an 

attorney has been convicted of a crime which is 

not a serious crime, the supreme court may refer 

the matter to the appropriate disciplinary board 

for any action it may deem warranted under these 

or any other rules of the supreme court that 

pertain to the conduct of attorneys, provided, 

however, that the supreme court may decline to 

refer a conviction for a minor offense to the board. 

If the conviction adversely reflects on the 

attorney's fitness to practice law, the supreme 

court may issue an order to show cause, requiring 

the attorney to demonstrate why an immediate 

temporary suspension should not be imposed. 

Having reviewed the petition and the supporting 

documentation submitted by bar counsel, and in light of Stuart's failure to 

respond to our show cause order, we conclude that a temporary suspension 

is warranted. 2Accordingly, we temporarily suspend Stuart from the 

2See Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Weaver, 812 

N.W.2d 4 (Iowa 2012) (holding that an attorney's criminal conviction for 

the telephonic harassment of his wife reflected adversely on the attorney's 

honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 
,J. 

Douglas 

J. 

Gibbons 

Parraguirre 

practice of law and refer this matter to the Southern Nevada Disciplinary 

Board for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. 3 See SCR 111(9). 

It is so ORDERED. 4 

3We recognize that Stuart has been suspended from the practice of 

law in Nevada since August 2003 for failure to pay his bar dues. See SCR 

98(12). Accordingly, in order to be reinstated to the practice of law in 

Nevada, Stuart must comply with the reinstatement requirements of SCR 

98(13), in addition to the disciplinary conditions and/or reinstatement 

requirements, if any, imposed in the instant matter. 

4The Honorable Nancy M. Saitta, Justice, did not participate in the 

resolution of this matter. 

3 
cc: Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

David A. Clark, Bar Counsel 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Colbern Cox Stuart, III 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, 

Supreme Court of the United States 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4
#### § 1001.11 Other rights and services.

Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.

[82 FR 34837, July 27, 2017]
# C_2012058EN.01000901.xml

| 25.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Hell Energy Magyarország v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)

(Case T-522/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark HELL - Earlier Community word mark HELLA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 58/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hell Energy Magyarország kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH (Rellingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard, E. Nicolás Gómez and T. Dolde, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2010 (Case R 1517/2009-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH and Hell Energy Magyarország.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hell Energy Magyarország kft to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hell Energy Magyarország kft to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

1

---
### §§1246, 1247. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–230, §24, Sept. 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 466

Sections, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, §209(f), (g), 42 Stat. 1468, related to reports to Comptroller of Currency and licenses to act as inspectors of livestock as basis for loans, suspension or revocation of licenses and false representations as to holding of license, respectively.
#### § 354.123 Segregation of suspects on ante-mortem inspection.

All rabbits which, on ante-mortem inspection, do not plainly show, but are suspected of being affected with any disease or condition that under §§ 354.129 to 354.131, inclusive, may cause condemnation in whole or in part on post-mortem inspection, shall be segregated from the other rabbits and held for separate slaughter, evisceration, and post-mortem inspection. The inspector shall be notified when such segregated lots are presented for post-mortem inspection and inspection of such rabbits shall be conducted separately. Such procedure for the correlation of ante-mortem and post-mortem findings by the inspector, as may be prescribed or approved by the Administrator, shall be carried out.
# C_2007129EN.01001401.xml

| 9.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/14

---

Action brought on 20 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-210/07)

(2007/C 129/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by R. Vidal Puig and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive 2004/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive 2004/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of that Directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2004/49/EC into national law expired on 30 April 2006.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

I, Carter D. Hicks, certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Digital River, Inc.;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)  designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

 

(b)  evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)  disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)  all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)  any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | May  7, 2004 |   |   |   |   | /s/ Carter D. Hicks      |   |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |              |   |   |   |   | Carter D. Hicks          |
|   |              |   |   |   |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### § 2.9 Officers, agents, and employees of licensees whose licenses have been suspended or revoked.

Any person who has been or is an officer, agent, or employee of a licensee whose license has been suspended or revoked and who was responsible for or participated in the activity upon which the order of suspension or revocation was based will not be licensed, or registered as a carrier, intermediate handler, dealer, exhibitor, or research facility, within the period during which the order of suspension or revocation is in effect.

[85 FR 28796, May 13, 2020]
# C_2010288EN.01007402.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/74

---

Action brought on 18 August 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-67/10)

()

(2010/C 288/140)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission's decision not to reimburse two-thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant in Case F-41/06.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision, whatever its form, which brought about the rejection by the Commission of the request of 22 September 2009 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority and amended by the note of 8 October 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, whatever its form, which brought about the rejection by the Commission of the request of 22 September 2009 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority and amended by the note of 8 October 2009;

| — | annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision — whatever its form — by which the complaint of 5 April 2010 against the contested decision, sent by the applicant to the appointing authority, was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision — whatever its form — by which the complaint of 5 April 2010 against the contested decision, sent by the applicant to the appointing authority, was rejected;

| — | annul, in so far as is necessary, the note of 27 April 2010 (HR.D.2/MB/1s Ares (2010) 220139); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as is necessary, the note of 27 April 2010 (HR.D.2/MB/1s Ares (2010) 220139);

| — | order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 21 608,75, together with interest calculated at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, and running from the date of the request of 22 September 2009 until actual payment of the sum immediately due by way of reparation for the damage which has been, or is being, suffered by the applicant on account of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 21 608,75, together with interest calculated at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, and running from the date of the request of 22 September 2009 until actual payment of the sum immediately due by way of reparation for the damage which has been, or is being, suffered by the applicant on account of the contested decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### § 158.202 Cybersecurity Service (DHS-CS).

The Secretary or designee establishes and manages the DHS-CS to enhance the cybersecurity of the Nation through the most effective execution of the DHS cybersecurity mission.
# C_2006249EN.01000803.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/8

---

Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-451/04) (1)

1

(2006/C 249/19)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

1

---
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002**






n
      connection with the Quarterly Report of *Family
      Healthcare Solutions, Inc.* ,
      a
      Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-QSB for the second quarter ended
      June
      30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
      I,
      Teodoro F. Franco L., certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002
      (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my 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.




Dated:
      July 25, 2006






/s/Teodoro
      F. Franco L


Teodoro
      F. Franco L


Sole
      Officer/Director
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


                            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 and subsidiary (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


Date: November 14, 2007


/s/ Birge Bargmann
------------------
Birge Bargmann
CHIEF 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.
#### § 9410.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the term—

*Commission* means the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 15301 *et seq.*

*Commissioner* means an individual appointed to the Commission by the President and confirmed by the Senate under section 203 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 15323.

*Individual* means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

*Maintain* includes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate.

*Record* means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by the Commission including, but not limited to, his or her education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his or her name or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying information particularly assigned to the individual, such as finger or voice print or a photograph.

*Systems of records* means a group of any records under the control of the Commission from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying information particularly assigned to the individual.
### **CHAPTER 8—ADJUSTMENT AND CANCELLATION OF FARM LOANS**

Sec.
1150.
Compromise, adjustment, and cancellation of farm loans; conditions; delegation of powers and duties by Secretary of Agriculture.
1150a.
Farm loans to which chapter is applicable.
1150b.
Authorization of appropriations.
1150c.
Self-hauling of hay or other roughages under hay transportation assistance program; liability for or refund of excess payments; availability of funds for payments.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

For provisions similar to former chapter 8 of this title, relating to federal intermediate credit banks, see Part A (§2071 et seq.) of subchapter II of chapter 23 of this title.