alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010100EN.01005501.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/55

---

Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Herbert Meister against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09, Meister v OHIM

(Case T-48/10 P)

2010/C 100/81

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Herbert Meister (Muchamiel, Spain) (represented by H.-J. Zimmermann, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09 Meister v OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09 Meister v OHIM;

Meister

OHIM

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-17/09 Meister v OHIM by which the appellant’s action was dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

Meister

OHIM

In support of his appeal, the appellant claims that the action at first instance was necessary on the ground that the facts are directly materially connected with the subject-matter of the previous Joined Cases F-138/06 and F-37/08, which at the time the action was brought had not been decided. The appellant claims that the dismissal from the outset of Case F-17/09 as inadmissible without an oral hearing infringes the guarantee of the right to be heard in Article 6 ECHR. Furthermore, the appellant complains that the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed its request for a stay of proceedings in view of an appeal brought against the judgment in Case F-37/08. Finally, it complains that the court of first instance’s assessment of the subject-matter was incomplete an incorrect in law.

---
# C_2011362EN.01002301.xml

| 10.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/23

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — AC v Council

(Case F-9/10) (1)

1

(Civil service - Promotion - 2009 promotion exercise - Comparative examination of merit - Manifest error of assessment)

2011/C 362/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AC (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of persons promoted to grade AD 13 in the 2009 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AC to pay the entirety of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AC to pay the entirety of the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010, p. 79.

1

---
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1311

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish an eleventh region of the Environmental Protection Agency, comprised solely of the State of Alaska.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 30, 1999

Mr. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency to establish an eleventh region of the Environmental Protection Agency, comprised solely of the State

of Alaska.

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

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF EPA REGION FOR ALASKA.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the Envi5 ronmental Protection Agency shall establish—

6 (1) an eleventh region of the Environmental

7 Protection Agency, comprised solely of the State of

8 Alaska; and
2

•S 1311 IS

1 (2) a regional office for the region located in

2 the State.

3 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

4 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec5 essary to carry out this Act.

Æ
AAM-11-174-E 

March 01, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10216 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0128 

Ms. Catherine Yelle 

Chief Pilot 

Helicopter Flight Services, Inc. 

112 Charles Lindbergh Drive, Hangar 111 

Teterboro, NJ 07608 

Dear Ms. Yelle: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated February 10, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Helicopter Flight Services, Inc. (HFS) for an exemption from §§ 120.117(b) and 

120.225(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow 

HFS, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive 

employees under one drug testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to HFS. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 
2 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Helicopter Flight Services, Inc. an exemption from 

part 120 to the extent necessary to allow HFS, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of HFS are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the HFS part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Deputy James R. Fraiser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
### Part E—Relief for Airports

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Part E was enacted as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and not as part of the CARES Act which in part comprises this chapter.
### §175. Additional duties of Bureau

It shall be the province and duty of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce, to foster, promote, and develop the various manufacturing industries of the United States, and markets for the same at home and abroad, domestic and foreign, by gathering, compiling, publishing, and supplying all available and useful information concerning such industries and such markets, and by such other methods and means as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce or provided by law.

(Feb. 14, 1903, ch. 552, §5, 32 Stat. 827; Apr. 5, 1906, ch. 1366, §3, 34 Stat. 100; Aug. 23, 1912, ch. 350, §1, 37 Stat. 407; Mar. 4, 1913, ch. 141, §1, 37 Stat. 736; Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title XI, §1131(23), 60 Stat. 1037.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1946—Act Aug. 13, 1946, repealed last sentence relating to duties of consular officers with respect to the Bureau.

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

#### Change of Name

Act Mar. 4, 1913, substituted the "Secretary of Commerce" for "Secretary of Commerce and Labor".

#### Effective Date of 1946 Amendment

Amendment by act Aug. 13, 1946, effective three months from Aug. 13, 1946, see section 1141 of that act.

#### Transfer of Functions

Act Aug. 23, 1912, transferred certain duties of Department or Bureau of Labor to Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.

Act Apr. 5, 1906, abolished the grade of commercial agent and commercial agent's function of helping to gather foreign trade information, reference to which formerly appeared in the last sentence of this section. Such last sentence was subsequently repealed by Act Aug. 13, 1946.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, see note set out under section 172 of this title.
### §154. Investigations by registrar; revocation of certificate of incorporation

The registrar may, in order to ascertain if the affairs of a China Trade Act corporation are conducted contrary to any provision of this chapter, or any other law, or any treaty of the United States, or the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the corporation, investigate the affairs of the corporation. The registrar, whenever he is satisfied that the affairs of any China Trade Act corporation are or have been so conducted, may institute in the United States Court for China proceedings for the revocation of the certificate of incorporation of the corporation. The court may revoke such certificate if it finds the affairs of such corporation have been so conducted. Pending final decision in the revocation proceedings the court may at any time, upon application of the registrar or upon its own motion, make such orders in respect to the conduct of the affairs of the corporation as it deems advisable.

(Sept. 19, 1922, ch. 346, §14, 42 Stat. 853.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

United States Court for China, referred to in text, has been abolished. See Codification note set out under section 142 of this title.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.02

ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
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 of Alliance Semiconductor Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 27, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Ronald K. Shelton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the
      Company.

/s/ Ronald K. Shelton
Ronald K. Shelton
Vice President Finance and Administration and
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
June 10, 2004
#### § 300.70 Scope (52 U.S.C. 30125(f)(1)).

This subpart applies to any candidate for State or local office, individual holding State or local office, or an agent acting on behalf of any such candidate or individual. For example, this subpart applies to an individual holding Federal office who is a candidate for State or local office. This subpart does not apply to an association or similar group of candidates for State or local office or of individuals holding State or local office.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3084

_____________________________
J EFFREY S COTT L INTO N , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Thomas V. Dannheisser , Judge

. April 20, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. We affirm the appellant's judgment and sentence

, but remand for correction of a scrivener's error contained in the written judgment and sentence. See Diaz v. State , 910 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (remanding for correction of scr ivener's error in the judgment)

. The written judgment incorrectly lists the appellant’s conviction for aggravated child abuse as a first

- degree felony punishable by life, instead of a first

- degree felony. See § 827.03(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015 ).

A FFIRMED and R EMANDED with instructions

.

B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and L EWIS and M AKAR , JJ ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. A pp. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant ; Jeffrey Scott Linton, pro se, Appellant

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.
#### § 95.38 Regulations applicable to products from Territorial possessions.

The regulations in this part shall be applicable to all the products and materials specified in this part which are offered for entry into the United States from any place under the jurisdiction of the United States to which the animal-quarantine laws of this country do not apply.

[28 FR 5981, June 13, 1963. Redesignated at 78 FR 73003, Dec. 4, 2013]
### §2806. Relationship of statutory provisions to State and local laws

#### (a) Termination or nonrenewal of franchise

(1) To the extent that any provision of this subchapter applies to the termination (or the furnishing of notification with respect thereto) of any franchise, or to the nonrenewal (or the furnishing of notification with respect thereto) of any franchise relationship, no State or any political subdivision thereof may adopt, enforce, or continue in effect any provision of any law or regulation (including any remedy or penalty applicable to any violation thereof) with respect to termination (or the furnishing of notification with respect thereto) of any such franchise or to the nonrenewal (or the furnishing of notification with respect thereto) of any such franchise relationship unless such provision of such law or regulation is the same as the applicable provision of this subchapter.

(2) No State or political subdivision of a State may adopt, enforce, or continue in effect any provision of law (including a regulation) that requires a payment for the goodwill of a franchisee on the termination of a franchise or nonrenewal of a franchise relationship authorized by this subchapter.

#### (b) Transfer or assignment of franchise

(1) Nothing in this subchapter authorizes any transfer or assignment of any franchise or prohibits any transfer or assignment of any franchise as authorized by the provisions of such franchise or by any applicable provision of State law which permits such transfer or assignment without regard to any provision of the franchise.

(2) Nothing in this subchapter shall prohibit any State from specifying the terms and conditions under which any franchise or franchise relationship may be transferred to the designated successor of a franchisee upon the death of the franchisee.

(Pub. L. 95–297, title I, §106, June 19, 1978, 92 Stat. 332; Pub. L. 103–371, §5, Oct. 19, 1994, 108 Stat. 3485.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–371, §5(1), redesignated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–371, §5(2), redesignated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).
§ 439.5 Applications for accreditation. ( a ) Participation in the ALP is voluntary. Application for accreditation must be made on designated paper or electronic forms provided by FSIS, or otherwise in writing, by the owner or manager of a non-Federal analytical laboratory. Application forms may be obtained by contacting the ALP at *ALP@usda.gov .* The forms must be sent to the ALP or may be submitted electronically. The application must specify the kinds of accreditation sought by the owner or manager of the laboratory. A laboratory whose accreditation has been refused or revoked for performance reasons may reapply for accreditation after 60 days from the effective date of that action and must provide written documentation specifying what corrections were made and illustrate to FSIS that the corrections are effective or would reasonably be expected to be effective.
( b ) At the time that an application for accreditation is filed with the ALP, the laboratory must submit fees payable to the U.S. Department of Agriculture by check, bank draft, money order, or other form of payment accepted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the amount specified by FSIS as directed in 9 CFR 391.5, along with the completed application for the accreditation(s).
( c ) An application for accreditation will not be processed or allowed to advance, without further procedure, if the accreditation fee(s) is delinquent.
( d ) FSIS will issue a bill annually in the amount specified by FSIS in 9 CFR 391.5 for each accreditation held and are due by the date required. Bills are payable to the U.S. Department of Agriculture by check, bank draft, money order, or other form of payment accepted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Determining Future Prices For Clothesasher US.DepartentEnergy Workshop , OfficeofEnergyEfficiency Clothes Washers and Renewable Energy July23, 1997 1000 IndependenceAvenue,SW Washington, DC 20585Clothes Washer Workshop: Price Forecasts Different approaches could be used to determine retail prices. 4/ Survey of existing market prices 4/ Expert Forecasts !V Various mark-ups overvariable costs/manufacturing costs

DRAFT July9. 1997Clothes Washer Workshop: Price Forecasts Expert Forecasts ,/ Manufacturer costdata sheets include a column labeled "Estimated increase inretail price". Format could be modified to include a range or otherfeatures. 4/ DOE will considerany additional forecasts received incomments.

DRAFT Juy 9. 1997 5Clothes Washer Workshop: Price Forecasts 

### Based on pastanalysisthe Department is seeking comment on a 2-step mark-up strategythat incorporates different cost pass-through assumptions. Manufacturing Cost Manufacturer Mark-up Range [ 1.00 to 1.42 ] Manufacturer Price
- Retail Mark-up Range [ 1.30 to 1.475 ] Retail Price The mark-ups would be expressed as probabilitydistributions. DRAFT Juy 9, 1997 7Clothes Washer Workshop: Price Forecasts 

### Summary 

# J/Consistent with the process rule, priceswill be described within an uncertainty range. The Department will use all the approaches previously described to bound the uncertainty. ^/ The mark-up approach will use various assumptions about cost passthrough. 

# 4/ The price forecasts will be reported as probability distributions and used as inputto the Manufacturer Impact and Life-Cycle-Cost analyses.

DRAFT July 9.1997 9
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 578 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 578

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the five-
month waiting period for disability insurance benefits under such title 
          for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``ALS Disability Insurance Access Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF WAITING PERIOD FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY 
              INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR DISABLED INDIVIDUALS WITH 
              AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS (ALS).

    (a) In General.--Section 223(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 423(a)(1)) is amended in the matter following subparagraph (E) 
by striking ``or (ii)'' and inserting ``(ii) in the case of an 
individual who has been medically determined to have amyotrophic 
lateral sclerosis, for each month beginning with the first month during 
all of which the individual is under a disability and in which the 
individual becomes entitled to such insurance benefits, or (iii)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to applications for disability insurance benefits filed 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the Senate December 2, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 578

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the five-
month waiting period for disability insurance benefits under such title 
          for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
```
### **CHAPTER 79—METAL CASTING COMPETITIVENESS RESEARCH PROGRAM**

Sec.
5301.
Findings.
5302.
Definitions.
5303.
Establishment of program.
5304.
Operation of program.
5305.
Review.
5306.
Industrial Advisory Board.
5307.
Authorization of appropriations.
5308.
Protection of proprietary rights.
5309.
Omitted.
# C_2012138EN.01001603.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — You-Q BV v OHIM — Apple Corps (BEATLE)

(Case T-369/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BEATLE - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BEATLES and THE BEATLES - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier marks)

(2012/C 138/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: You-Q BV, formerly Handicare Holding BV (Helmond, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van Roeyen)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Apple Corps Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Terry, Solicitor, and F. Clark, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2010 (Case R 1276/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Apple Corps Ltd and Movingpeople.net International BV

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders You-Q BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders You-Q BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

---