alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 158.403 Talent market analysis. On an ongoing basis, the Secretary or designee conducts an analysis of the cybersecurity talent market, using generally recognized compensation principles and practices to: ( a ) Identify and monitor trends in both employment for and availability of talent related to cybersecurity, including variations in the cost of talent in local cybersecurity talent markets, defined in § 158.612(b)(1), or variations in the cost of living in those markets, or both; and
( b ) Identify leading strategies for recruiting and retaining talent related to cybersecurity.
§ 202.115 Rule 15: Submission for final consideration. ( a ) *Report.* The presiding officer, with the assistance and collaboration of such employees of the Department as may be assigned for the purpose, shall prepare a report. The report shall be prepared on the basis of the evidence in the record, including the investigation report if one is prepared by the agency head and served on the parties, and any allegations admitted or deemed to be admitted, and any stipulations. The report shall be prepared in the form of a final order for signature by the judicial officer, and shall be filed with the hearing clerk. The report shall not be served on the parties unless and until it is signed by the judicial officer.
( b ) *Record.* At the same time as the report is filed with the hearing clerk, the record shall also be filed with the hearing clerk. The record shall include: Pleadings; motions and requests filed and rulings thereon; the investigation report if one is prepared by the agency head and served on the parties; the transcript or recording of an oral hearing, and exhibits received, if an oral hearing was held; evidence filed by the parties if a written hearing was held; documents filed in connection with pre-hearing conferences; any proposed findings of fact, conclusions and orders, statements of objections, and briefs; any stipulations; and proof of service.
( c ) *Submission to judicial officer.* Unless the hearing clerk reasonably believes that the record is not complete and in proper order, the record and the report shall be submitted to the judicial officer for decision.
( d ) *Oral argument.* There shall be no right to oral argument other than that provided in rule 12(h), § 202.112(h).
[43 FR 30510, July 14, 1978, as amended at 60 FR 8467, Feb. 14, 1995]
NEW. SMYRNA BEACH
SCALE 1:100,000 »
# C_2011055EN.01001901.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/19

---

Action brought on 6 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-568/10)

2011/C 55/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Maria Condou-Durande and W. Bogensberger, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by introducing rules under which students who are third-country nationals may be granted a work permit only after the labour-market situation in Austria has been examined in order to ensure that the vacancy cannot be filled by someone registered as unemployed, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by introducing rules under which students who are third-country nationals may be granted a work permit only after the labour-market situation in Austria has been examined in order to ensure that the vacancy cannot be filled by someone registered as unemployed, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service; (1)

1

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the provisions of Austrian law systematically deny students who are third-country nationals access to the labour market, in that they are issued a work permit for a vacant position only if a check has been previously carried out as to whether the position cannot be filled by a person registered as unemployed. Consequently, according to the Commission, the number of work permits issued for this category of persons is very low. For that reason, only 10 % of students who are third-country nationals, in comparison with 70 % of Austrian students, have the possibility to finance part of the costs of their studies by means of employment.

In the view of the Republic of Austria, these restrictions are justified. It claims that, because of its free access to university and low university fees, Austria is particularly attractive for third-country nationals. Due to their inadequate knowledge of German and lack of professional qualifications, they generally find employment in unqualified areas and thereby increase yet further the currently high unemployment rate in this sector.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12.

1

---
### §631. False representations as to liability of United States for acts of corporation; punishment

Whoever being connected in any capacity with any corporation organized under this subchapter, represents in any way that the United States is liable for the payment of any bond or other obligation, or the interest thereon, issued or incurred by any corporation organized under this subchapter, or that the United States incurs any liability in respect of any act or omission of the corporation, shall be punished by a fine or 1 not more than $10,000 and by imprisonment for not more than five years.

(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §25A (par.), formerly §25(a), as added Dec. 24, 1919, ch. 18, 41 Stat. 378; renumbered §25A, Pub. L. 102–242, title I, §142(e)(2), Dec. 19, 1991, 105 Stat. 2281.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this section", meaning section 25A of act Dec. 23, 1913, which is classified to this subchapter (§611 et seq.).

Organized under this subchapter, referred to the second time in text, was in the original "organized hereunder", meaning under section 25A of act Dec. 23, 1913.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of par. 23 (undesignated) of section 25A of act Dec. 23, 1913, which comprises this subchapter. For complete classification of section 25A of this Act, see Codification note set out under section 611 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "of".
RE: question on SeaTac project

Nate Holloway 

t

o

:

Jesse Pritts 07/23/2010 12:10 PM

History: This message has been replied to.

Sorry Pond F is correct. I got confused since Pond F started out w/ 1

system then added another by Dec 2007.

C,D,G1, G2 Ponds: G1/2 were storage ponds only and were pumped to ponds C

and D. From there we pre-treated to a separate temporary lined pond. Any

one of the 5 filters could pull from that pre-treatment pond. Also, either

of the 2 control units could pull from C or D ponds.

Hope this helps,

Nate

425-754-1541

-----Original Message-----

From: Pritts.Jesse@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Pritts.Jesse@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:31 PM

To: Nate Holloway

Subject: RE: question on SeaTac project

Awesome - thanks.

There are five systems associated with ponds C, D, G1 and G2 - do you

know which of the five systems were located at each of the four ponds?

Also, you listed the Site 1 December 2007 file as being the M pond - is

that correct, or is it the F pond? I ask because you indicated the M

pond had one system while the F pond had two.

Thanks - I know it's a pain to dig through old files.

 From: "Nate Holloway" <nholloway@ch2ocsi.com>

 To: Jesse Pritts/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

 Date: 07/22/2010 03:40 PM

 Subject: RE: question on SeaTac project
Jesse,

I've filled out the corresponding pond info in the attached spreadsheet

and

double checked that the files I sent you earlier match.

Basically our treatment systems are modular with control units that can

handle between 1-5 54" sandfilters (500gpm nominal flow rate each), but

each

sandfilter has it's own PLC and corresponding data set

Pond F = 2-500gpm systems

Pond M = 1-500gpm system

CDG Ponds = 5-500gpm systems

South Pond = 4-500gpm system

I apologize for the confusion, we have since moved to a more

comprehensive

web-based data management system in an effort to avoid issues such as

this

If you need more information please let me know.

Nate

425-754-1541

-----Original Message-----

From: Pritts.Jesse@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Pritts.Jesse@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:53 AM

To: Nate Holloway

Subject: RE: question on SeaTac project

Hi NateDid a bit more digging this morning - take a look at the attached

spreadsheet. What I need to know is which systems correspond to which

ponds. I have six data files, but there is no information in five of

these files that identifies which systems are associated with which pond

on the site. Only one file (the site 3, January 2008 file) identifies

the system as being at pond M. If you need the actual data files, I can

email those to you. Just let me know.

Thanks againJesse W. Pritts, P.E.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (4303T)
Washington, DC 20460

tel 202-566-1038

fax 202-566-1053

www.epa.gov/waterscience

Courier/FedEx:

1301 Constitution Ave., NW

Room 6233AA EPA West

Washington, DC 20004

(See attached file: Site 1 2 3 systems and ponds.xlsx)

[attachment "Site 1 2 3 systems and ponds.xlsx" deleted by Jesse

Pritts/DC/USEPA/US]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                   NEWS
                                   Contact:  James A. Demme, Chairman
                                                  (405) 879-6600
 


                   HOMELAND 4TH QUARTER SALES RESULTS
                              
               
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, February 7, 1997 -- Homeland Stores, Inc. announced today 

its same-store sales for the 16-week fourth quarter ended December 28, 1996, 

were 1.7% higher than the comparable quarter for 1995.  In addition, the  

company stated that same-store sales for the fiscal year increased by 0.3%.



     Homeland plans to spend $12 million in 1997 to expand and remodel its 
      
retail store base.  Currently, there are 23 stores undergoing various capital 

improvements.



     Homeland is the leading supermarket chain in Oklahoma, southern, Kansas, 
      
and the Texas panhandle region, operating a total of 66 stores.  The company 

operates in four distinct marketplaces: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Tulsa,  

Oklahoma; Amarillo, Texas; and certain rural areas of Oklahoma, Kansas and 

Texas.
1Judge King did not participate in the decision.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

R E V I S E D 05/15/06

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-11432

POSITIVE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION; NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL

CORPORATION; eCONDUIT CORPORATION; THE ANYLOAN COMPANY; JEFF

LEMIEUX; FRANK NESE

Defendants-Appellants

- - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

- - - - -

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion January 11, 2006, 5 Cir., 2006, _____F.3d____)

BEFORE: JONES, Chief Judge, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, SMITH,

WIENER, BARKSDALE, GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART,

DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.1

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested

a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of

the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a

rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the
court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. 

The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of

supplemental briefs.
# C_2006310EN.01001501.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/15

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2006 — Armour Pharmaceutical v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (GALZIN)

(Case T-483/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GALZIN - Earlier national word mark CALSYN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods and signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 - Findings of OHIM - Admissibility)

(2006/C 310/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Armour Pharmaceutical Co. (Bridgewater, New Jersey United States) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Pétrequin, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2004 (Case R 295/2003-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Armour Pharmaceutical Co. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 September 2004 (Case R 295/2003-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 September 2004 (Case R 295/2003-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

1

---
# C_2011013EN.01001802.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 14 October 2010 — Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co KG v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

(Case C-492/10)

()

2011/C 13/31

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co KG

Appellant:

Respondent: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the absorption of a company’s losses by its sole member, a public body whose representative was instructed by the competent body to grant an annual member’s contribution to cover losses up to the amount provisionally earmarked in the budget estimate or business plan adopted by the company prior to the beginning of the financial year, increase the assets of that company within the meaning of Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 69/335/EEC (1) (which is identical to Article 3(h) of Directive 2008/7/EC)?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25)

1

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00240-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

462nd District Court of Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-1842-442

Before Bassel, Gabriel, and Kerr, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE H.B., Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion 

for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief are denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: July 30, 2020
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

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

The  undersigned,  Robert A. Bourne,  the  President and Treasurer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund XV, Ltd.  (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission of the Partnership's  Annual Report
on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2003 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies that:

(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 Partnership.


Date: March 24, 2004


                                     /s/ Robert A. Bourne
                                     -----------------------------------
                                     Name:  Robert A. Bourne
                                     Title: President and Treasurer

                                     A signed original of this written statement
                                     required by Section  906 has been  provided
                                     to CNL  Income  Fund XV,  Ltd.  and will be
                                     retained by CNL Income  Fund XV,  Ltd.  and
                                     furnished  to the  Securities  and Exchange
                                     Commission or its staff upon request.
Harcros Chemicals Inc. 

5200 Speaker Road 

Kansas City, KS 66106 

Telephone: 913/621-7747 

Fax: 913/621-7746 

E-mail: OrganicsCS@Harcros.com 

Date 06/28/13 

Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) 

Office of Pollution Control and Toxics (OPPT) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

EPA East Building, Room E6428 (202-564-8930) 

1201 Constitution Ave., NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 (202-564-8930) 

Attn: TSCA Section 4 

40 CFR § 799.5087 (Docket# EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531) 

Telephone number: 202-564-8091 

CBIC Control Number 

354953 

RE: Request for Extension of Testing for D-Giuco-Heptonic acid, monosodium salt, (2 xi)-

To Whom it May Concern: 

Harcros Chemicals Inc. submitted a letter of intent for D-gluco-Heptonic acid, monosodium salt, (2.xi.)-

[CAS# 31138-65-5] on April 5, 2011. We are requesting an extension until July 31, 2013 to complete the 

testing requirements in accordance with EPA's final rule, Testing of Certain High Production Volume 

Chemicals; Second Group of Chemicals, published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2011 at 76 

Fed. Reg. pages 1067 through 1093 docketed under EPA docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-

0531. 

This request for additional time is necessitated by the difficulties that Harcros Chemicals has encountered in 

receiving the test data infonnation and final reports from our testing facility, Harlan Laboratories. Harlan had 

indicated that we would receive the requested information by the end of June 2013. 

To date, we are missing the final report for the Physical Properties, Test Symbols A1, A2 and A4, Melting 

Point, Boiling Point and Water Solubility. In addition we are also missing final results and the final report for 

the Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with the Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening, Test 

Symbol F1. This extension is requested for these testing requirements. 

Please let us know if this extension request is acceptable to EPA. If any further information is required, 

please do not hesitate to contact me at (913) 621-7802 or at asavini@harcros.com. 

Ann Marie Savini 

Harcros Chemicals Inc. 

Regulatory Specialist 

cc: Peter Radford 

Howard Stevenson 

John Miles 

James Grantham 

Don Meuschke 

File 

•
USDA GUS TRAINING

DECLARATIONS AND DEMOGRAPHICS PAGES
Training Objectives:

• Understanding of how to complete the Declarations/Military and Demographics 

tabs in GUS

• Personal vs. Financial related questions.

• Be aware that some “yes” responses open additional questions.

• Cover Military experience related questions.

• Cover demographics and required feedback.
Declarations

Declarations are broken out 

by Borrower and by section.

Three sections:

1. About this Property 

and Your Money for 

this Loan.

2. About Your Finances

3. Military Service
Declarations (continued)

It is important to note that 

if the Borrower answers 

“yes” to certain questions 

on the Declarations tab, 

additional questions will 

appear that need to be 

answered.

We have highlighted those 

questions on this page.
Declarations (more info)
More... Drop Down Menu
More... Drop Down Menu (continued)
Demographic Information (continued) 
Demographic Information (more information) 
End Slide 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
# C_2011355EN.01001901.xml

| 3.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2011 — Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission

(Case T-262/10) (1)

1

(Public health - List of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs - Withdrawal by the original applicant of the application for inclusion of an additive on the list - Commission decision not to include 2,4,4’-trichloro-2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether in the list - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Regulatory act - Whether directly concerned - No implementing measures - Legal basis)

2011/C 355/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Microban International (Huntersville, North Carolina, United States) and Microban (Europe) Ltd (Cannock, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Sánchez Rydelski, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro and T. Scharf, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/169/EU of 19 March 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of 2,4,4’-trichloro-2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether in the Union list of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs under Directive 2002/72/EC (OJ 2010 L 75, p. 25).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2010/169/EU of 19 March 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of 2,4,4’-trichloro-2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether in the Union list of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs under Directive 2002/72/EC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2010/169/EU of 19 March 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of 2,4,4’-trichloro-2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether in the Union list of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs under Directive 2002/72/EC.

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Microban International Ltd and Microban (Europe) Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Microban International Ltd and Microban (Europe) Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

1

---