alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 59 

To adjust the boundary of the Arapaho National Forest, Colorado, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 8, 2019 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. GARDNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To adjust the boundary of the Arapaho National Forest, 

Colorado, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Arapaho National For5 est Boundary Adjustment Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ARAPAHO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY ADJUST7 MENT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.— 

9 (1) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.—The boundary 

10 of the Arapaho National Forest in the State of ColoVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:25 Jan 15, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S59.IS S59

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 59 IS

1 rado is adjusted to incorporate the approximately 

2 92.95 acres of land generally depicted as ‘‘The 

3 Wedge’’ on the map entitled ‘‘Arapaho National 

4 Forest Boundary Adjustment’’ and dated November 

5 6, 2013, and described as lots 3, 4, 8, and 9 of sec. 

6 13, T. 4 N., R. 76 W., Sixth Principal Meridian, 

7 Colorado. 

8 (2) LIMITATION.—A lot described in paragraph 

9 (1) may be included in the boundary adjustment 

10 only after the Secretary of Agriculture obtains writ11 ten permission for the inclusion from each owner of 

12 the lot. 

13 (b) BOWEN GULCH PROTECTION AREA.—The Sec14 retary of Agriculture shall include all Federal land within 

15 the boundary described in subsection (a) in the Bowen 

16 Gulch Protection Area established under section 6 of the 

17 Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 539j). 

18 (c) LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.—For 

19 purposes of section 200306(a)(2)(B)(i) of title 54, United 

20 States Code, the boundaries of the Arapaho National For21 est, as modified under subsection (a), shall be considered 

22 to be the boundaries of the Arapaho National Forest as 

23 in existence on January 1, 1965. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 59 IS

1 (d) PUBLIC MOTORIZED USE.—Nothing in this Act 

2 opens privately owned land within the boundary described 

3 in subsection (a) to public motorized use. 

4 (e) ACCESS TO NON-FEDERAL LAND.—Notwith5 standing the provisions of section 6(f) of the Colorado Wil6 derness Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 539j(f)) regarding motor7 ized travel, the owners of any non-Federal land within the 

8 boundary described in subsection (a) who historically have 

9 accessed their land through land owned by the United 

10 States on or after the date of enactment of this Act within 

11 the boundary described in subsection (a) shall have the 

12 continued right of motorized access to their land across 

13 the existing roadway. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### § 533.7 Basis of billing for overtime and holiday services.

The requirements for billing and overtime and holiday inspection services are as required by 9 CFR 307.6.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       5,665,736
<SECURITIES>                                 7,080,605
<RECEIVABLES>                                  530,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,800
<INVENTORY>                                    416,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,983,610
<PP&E>                                         835,435
<DEPRECIATION>                                 260,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,748,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          527,137
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,606
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,210,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,748,437
<SALES>                                      1,448,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,448,314
<CGS>                                        1,386,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,386,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            35,886,965
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,047,619)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,047,619)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,047,619)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.58)       
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.58)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011030EN.01005601.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/56

---

Action brought on 3 December 2010 — H. Eich v OHIM — Arav (H. Eich)

(Case T-557/10)

()

2011/C 30/98

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: H. Eich Srl (Signa, Italy) (represented by: D. Mainini, T. Rubin, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli, G. Petrocchi, B. Passaretti, 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: Arav Holding Srl (Palma Campania, Italy)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010;

| — | Declare valid the mark H. EICH referred to in registration application No 6 256 242; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare valid the mark H. EICH referred to in registration application No 6 256 242;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs of all proceedings, including before the two OHIM instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of all proceedings, including before the two OHIM instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: H. Eich

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘H. Eich’ (registration application No 6 256 242), for goods in Classes 18 and 25;

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Arav Holding Srl

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘H-Silvian Heach’ (Italian mark No 976 125, and mark No 880 562, pursuant to the Protocol to the Madrid Agreement, for Benelux, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the United Kingdom), for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for registration.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (no likelihood of confusion).

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 32.1








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 annual report on Form 10-K of Glimcher Realty Trust (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael P. Glimcher, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company (Principal Executive Officer), certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Company.









Date: February 23, 2011
/s/ Michael P. GlimcherMichael P. GlimcherChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive 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 Glimcher Realty Trust and will be retained by Glimcher Realty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
T.Rowe Price Small-Cap Value Fund

Under“Management,” the following is added to the portfolio manager table:

EffectiveJune 30, 2014, J. David Wagner will replace Preston G. Athey as the fund’s portfolio manager andchairman of the fund’s Investment Advisory Committee.   

F46-041-S    8/16/12
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

**SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officers of Corgenix Medical Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filedwith the Securities an Exchange Commission (the “10-Q Report”) that:

 

i.        the 10-Q Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

ii.     theinformation contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:    May 14, 2009

 

**This Certification is made solely for purposes of 18U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein,and not for any other purpose.**

 

**A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request. This written statement shall not bedeemed to be “filed” as part of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q that itaccompanies.**

 
| /s/ Douglass T. Simpson                            |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| President and Chief  Executive Officer             |   |
|                                               |   |
| /s/ William H. Critchfield                         |   |
| Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
# C_2007129EN.01001301.xml

| 9.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2007 — Alfonso Luigi Marra v Edoardo De Gregorio

(Case C-200/07)

(2007/C 129/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alfonso Luigi Marra

Applicant:

Defendant: Edoardo De Gregorio

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | In the event that a Member of the European Parliament does not act by exercising the right granted to him under Rule [6(3)] of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (1) directly to request the President to defend privileges and immunities, is the court before which a civil action is pending in any event required to request the President to waive immunity for the purposes of pursuing proceedings and adopting a decision?
  or |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the event that a Member of the European Parliament does not act by exercising the right granted to him under Rule [6(3)] of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (1) directly to request the President to defend privileges and immunities, is the court before which a civil action is pending in any event required to request the President to waive immunity for the purposes of pursuing proceedings and adopting a decision?

1

or

| 2. | In the absence of a communication by the European Parliament that it intends to defend the immunities and privileges of the Member concerned, may the court before which that civil action is pending rule as to the existence or otherwise of that privilege, regard being had to the specific circumstances of the case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the absence of a communication by the European Parliament that it intends to defend the immunities and privileges of the Member concerned, may the court before which that civil action is pending rule as to the existence or otherwise of that privilege, regard being had to the specific circumstances of the case?

---

(1)  OJ L 44, 15.2.2005, p. 1.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.97 Class actions in EEO cases. ( a ) Prior to invoking the Board's procedures in a case alleging prohibited discrimination on behalf of a class of GAO employees or applicants for employment, a complaint must first be filed with GAO in accordance with GAO Order 2713.2.
( b ) An appeal from GAO's disposition of any EEO class complaint may be submitted to the Board at the following times: ( 1 ) Within 20 days of receipt of a GAO determination rejecting or canceling the class complaint;
( 2 ) Within 20 days of receipt of a GAO determination accepting the class action, but with modifications that are not satisfactory to the agent of the class;
( 3 ) When a period of more than 180 days has elapsed since the formal class complaint was filed and the GAO has not issued a final decision; or
( 4 ) Within 20 days of receipt of a final GAO decision resolving the complaint if that decision, in whole or in part, has not satisfied the agent for the class.
( c ) In EEO class actions, employees shall not file charges with the Board's Office of General Counsel and that Office shall not undertake an independent investigation of a class complaint that has been filed with GAO. However, the General Counsel may request permission to intervene with regard to any issue in which the General Counsel finds a significant public interest with respect to the preservation of the merit system.
( d ) An appeal of a GAO disposition of an EEO class complaint shall be decided by the Board based upon a review of the administrative record, including any recommended findings and conclusions, developed in the GAO class complaint process. In such cases, the Board will employ the same standards of review set forth in § 28.87.
( e ) The parties to an EEO class complaint do not have a right to a de novo evidentiary hearing before the Board. However, either the class representative or GAO may file a motion requesting an evidentiary hearing, rather than having the Board decide the case upon review of the administrative record already developed by GAO. The Board, in its discretion, may grant such motion or, upon its own review of the administrative record, may direct that a new hearing be conducted. If the Board orders a new evidentiary hearing, the class representative shall file a petition on behalf of the class and the case shall be adjudicated before an administrative judge of this Board pursuant to the procedures applicable to an individual EEO complaint processed under § 28.98 of these regulations. For the purpose of determining whether it is appropriate to treat a petition as a class action, the administrative judge will be guided, but not controlled, by the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[58 FR 61992, Nov. 23, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 69303, Dec. 12, 2003]
### §284. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Oct. 22, 1951, ch. 533, title III, §301, 65 Stat. 593; Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, ch. III, title III, §301, 64 Stat. 628; July 20, 1949, ch. 354, title III, §301, 63 Stat. 468, which related to transfer of materials, etc., to Bureau of ionosphere observation by Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, was from the Department of Commerce Appropriation Act, 1952, and has not been repeated in subsequent appropriation acts.
# C_2007130EN.01000901.xml

| 12.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 June 2007

(2007/C 130/04)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3355 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 162,55 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4457 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67840 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3367 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6534 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 85,15 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1195 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5835 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,442 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 253,88 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8330 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,2676 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,277 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7893 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5849 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4186 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4352 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7810 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0615 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 245,49 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7020 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2342 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3399 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 119,66 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6322 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,101 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,7070 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,200 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3355

JPY

Japanese yen

162,55

DKK

Danish krone

7,4457

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67840

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3367

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6534

ISK

Iceland króna

85,15

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1195

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5835

CZK

Czech koruna

28,442

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

253,88

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8330

RON

Romanian leu

3,2676

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,277

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7893

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5849

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4186

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4352

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7810

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0615

KRW

South Korean won

1 245,49

ZAR

South African rand

9,7020

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2342

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3399

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 119,66

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6322

PHP

Philippine peso

62,101

RUB

Russian rouble

34,7070

THB

Thai baht

43,200

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2011282EN.01001902.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/19

---

Order of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Goutier v OHIM — Rauch (ARANTAX)

(Case T-13/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to give judgment)

2011/C 282/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Klaus Goutier (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E.E. Happe, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by B. Schmidt and then by B. Schmidt and R. Pethke, agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Norbert Rauch (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 November 2009 (Case R 1796/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Norbert Rauch and Klaus Goutier.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to give judgment in the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to give judgment in the action.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The intervener will bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The intervener will bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6307

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILBERT GRADY LEE, JR., a/k/a Griz,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00081-IMK-1)

Submitted: June 26, 2013 Decided: July 5, 2013

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilbert Grady Lee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wilbert Grady Lee, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order granting, in part, his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) 

motion for sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. United States v. Lee, No. 1:06-cr-00081-IMK-1 

(N.D.W. Va. Jan. 12, 2012). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Notice: 

This document does not currently comply with Section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794d. The OIG is 

working to become fully compliant with the provisions of Section 508. If 

you need assistance with accessing the file, please contact the OIG's 

Office of Audit at (202) 927-5400, or webmaster@oig.treas.gov for an 

accessible edition of the report.