alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010161EN.01002802.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Isernia (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello

(Case C-163/10)

(2010/C 161/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Isernia

Party to the main proceedings

Aldo Patriciello

Question referred

Do the facts construed in abstracto as a criminal offence committed by Aldo Patriciello — a Member of the European Parliament, described in the indictment and in favour of whom the European Parliament adopted a decision on 5 May 2009 to support a defence of immunity — which is categorised as slander under Article 368 of the Penal Code correspond to the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties for the purposes of Article 9 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities?

---
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

TO THE 226TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on March 18, 2015

, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Joe Lee, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-14-00638-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2013CR10795

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on May 19, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
§ 7.1 Labor management relations. ( a ) *Policy.* Each employee of GAO has the right, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, to form, join, or assist an employee organization, or to refrain from such activity.
( b ) *Labor relations program.* A labor relations program consistent with chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code will be developed for the Government Accountability Office.
# C_2010080EN.01003302.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/33

---

Action brought on 7 January 2010 — Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ‘Ygia AE’ v OHIM

(Case T-7/10)

2010/C 80/56

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Diagnostiko kai Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon ‘Ygia AE’ (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Alexiou and S. Foteas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application;

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R190/2009-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R190/2009-2;

| — | register the word sign ‘υγεία’ (hygeia) as a Community trademark indicating the link between the applicant company and the services it provides; |
| --- | --- |

—

register the word sign ‘υγεία’ (hygeia) as a Community trademark indicating the link between the applicant company and the services it provides;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word sign ‘υγεία’ for services in Class 44, medical services — application for registration No 712900

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: confirmation of the decision of the examiner and rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

The application seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case No R 190/2009-2.

On the basis of the first plea, the applicant maintains that the contested decision wrongly ascribed purely descriptive character to the sign, despite the fact that it has a distinctive function in abstracto.

On the basis of the second plea, the applicant maintains that the contested decision wrongly rejected the distinctive function of the sign in consequence of the use reserved to it. According to the applicant, even if the descriptive character in abstracto of the word sign is accepted, the acquisition of distinctive function can be founded on use and constitutes a ground for setting aside the refusal to register.

---
### §3133. Exercise of rulemaking powers

(a) 1 The Provisions of this subchapter and the amendments made by such provisions are enacted by the Congress—

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, respectively, or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such House), at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.

(Pub. L. 95–523, title III, §305, Oct. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 1907.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title III of Pub. L. 95–523, Oct. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 1904, which enacted this subchapter and amended sections 632 and 636 of Title 2, The Congress. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of this title and Tables.

1 So in original. No subsec. (b) has been enacted.
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.141 Performance based actions. A career appointee removed from SES to a GAO position outside the SES for less than fully successful executive performance shall, upon notice of such removal, be entitled, upon request, to an informal hearing before a member of the Board designated by the Chair of the Board. ( a ) At the informal hearing, the career appointee and/or a representative and the agency may appear and present documentary evidence and argument.
( b ) The Board member will determine which, if any, witnesses will be allowed to testify. As a general rule, no cross-examination of witnesses will be allowed. The Board member will have discretion to allow cross-examination of witnesses in exceptional circumstances.
( c ) The informal hearing shall not give the career appointee the right to initiate an action with the Board under another provision of these rules, nor need the removal action be delayed as a result of the granting of such hearing.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Ournation�s air [electronic resource]: status and trends through**
 
2008
2010 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019
2020 | 2021
 
SuDoc Number:EP 4.64/2:
Item Number:0483-R-28 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000805110
 
August 1, 2018
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with thereport of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”), I, Jacob Y. Terner, M.D., ChiefExecutive 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) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| February 10, 2005 | /s/ JACOB Y. TERNER                                                               |   |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|              | **Jacob Y. Terner, MD****Chairman of the  Board and****Chief Executive  Officer** |

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

Nos. 95-40576 & 95-41031

Summary Calendar

 

EDWARD B. LYON, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A. SHAW, JR.; JAMES DUKE;

NOLAN A. PITTCOCK; RICKY JONES;

COFFIELD UNIT, TDCJ-ID; K. COX,

Captain; PHILLIP CRUTCHER,

Lieutenant; A.K. ODEN; T. EDWARDS,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

EDWARD B. LYON, JR.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NOLAN A. PITTCOCK,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC Nos. 6:94-CV-462 & 6:95-CV-382

- - - - - - - - - -

September 26, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
Nos. 95-40576 & 95-41031

- 2 -

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

Edward B. Lyon, Jr., Texas state prisoner #454153, appeals

from the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law on

behalf of some defendants, jury verdict in favor of some

defendants, and dismissal of his claims against one defendant as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) in his civil rights

suit. Lyon argues that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction

to hear the case, that the magistrate judge erred by dismissing

his pendant state claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act, that the

jury instruction with regard to his failure-to-protect claim was

fundamentally defective, that the magistrate judge erred by

entering a judgment as a matter of law in favor of Warden Shaw,

that the magistrate judge deprived him of the testimony of two

necessary witnesses at trial, that the magistrate judge erred by

failing to sequester a defense witness, that he was denied a fair

trial because of defense counsel’s improper closing argument,

that the magistrate judge erred by holding a second Spears

hearing on Lyon’s claims against defendant Pittcock after

Pittcock was severed from the case, and that the magistrate judge

erred by dismissing his claims against Pittcock as frivolous

pursuant to § 1915(d). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed for

essentially the reasons stated in the memorandum orders entered

by the magistrate judge. See Lyon v. Shaw, No. 6:94cv462 (E.D.
Nos. 95-40576 & 95-41031

- 3 -

Tex. June 6, 1995); Lyon v. Shaw, No. 6:94cv462 (E.D. Tex. June

7, 1995); Lyon v. Pittcock, No. 6:95CV382 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1,

1995). Additionally, the magistrate judge’s failure to sequester

a defense witness and her denial of Lyon’s motion for a

continuance did not constitute plain error. See United States v.

Wylie, 919 F.2d 969, 976 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Shaw,

920 F.2d 1225, 1230 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 926

(1991). Further, Lyon’s argument that defense counsel misstated

the evidence in his closing argument lacks support in the record. 

Nor has Lyon shown plain error from the absence of two inmate

witnesses from his trial. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
```
**EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C.ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Surgical Safety
Products, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Tim Novak, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Paul Gray Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his/her knowledge, 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/ Tim Novak
Tim Novak
Chief Executive Officer
November 18, 2002

/s/ Paul Gray
Paul Gray
Chief Financial Officer
November 18, 2002

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant toss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



ORTHOVITA, INC.

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350



I, Antony Koblish, Chief Executive Officer of Orthovita, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), hereby certify that:



(1) The Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Antony KoblishAntony KoblishChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)




Date: March 15, 2005
TRANSFER
TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL CORP.




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 Transfer Technology International Corp.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Robert J. Calamunci, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
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.




/s/
      Robert J. CalamunciRobert
      J. CalamunciChief
      Financial Officer
              Chief
      Accounting OfficerMay
      20, 2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Transfer Technology International Corp. and will be retained by
Transfer Technology International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §1829. Preemption of State laws; concurrent jurisdiction; prohibition on certain State action

No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together. Nor shall any provision of this chapter be construed to exclude the Federal Government from enforcing the provision of this chapter within any State, whether or not such State has enacted legislation on the same subject, it being the intent of the Congress to establish concurrent jurisdiction with the States over such subject matter. In no case shall any such State take any action pursuant to this section involving a violation of any such law of that State which would preclude the United States from enforcing the provisions of this chapter against any person.

(Pub. L. 91–540, §10, Dec. 9, 1970, 84 Stat. 1406.)
SYSTEMS AND POWERPLANT PROGRAM32 − LANDING GEARMRB TASKNUMBERMODELEFFECTIVITYDESCRIPTIONINTERVALTASKTYPEFECZONALTASK REF.320100−221 ALL Detailed Inspection of the MLG Side−Stay SpringAssembliesDET800 FH 8320100−222 ALL Restoration of the MLG Retract Actuator RST20000 FC 5320100−223 ALL Restoration of the NLG Retract Actuator RST20000 FC 5320100−224 ALL Restoration of the Steering Actuator RST20000 FC 8320100−225700/705/900 Restoration of the NLG Manual Release Actuator RST20000 FC 8320100−226 ALL Restoration of the NLG Drag Brace RST20000 FC 5,6320100−227 ALL Restoration of the MLG Sidestay RST20000 FC 5,6324000−201 ALL Visual Check of the MLG and NLG Wheel/Tire Assembly forDamageVCK50 FH 9324000−202 ALL Functional Check of MLG and NLG Tire Pressure FNC72 HRNote: Elapsed Time9324000−203 ALL Lubrication of the Brake Control Valve LUB1200 FH 5324000−204 ALL General Visual Inspection of Brake Wear Indicator Pin GVI50 FH 6324000−205 ALL Functional Check of the Brake Hydraulic Fuses FNC6000 FH 8324000−206 ALL Operational Check of the Brake Accumulator Pre−ChargePressure and Verification of Freedom of Movement of theAccumulator PistonNOTE: Reference CMR32−40−00−101OPC100 FH 8,9FMAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD REPORTCSP B−053 − Maintenance Requirements Manual − Part 11−32Page 3Jul 10/2013EFFECTIVITY: Model CL−600−2C10Model CL−600−2D15Model CL−600−2D24Model CL−600−2E25CRJ700/900/1000PAGE PRINTED ON 3-17-2014
§ 325.21 Means of conveyance in which dead, dying, disabled, or diseased livestock and parts of carcasses thereof shall be transported. All vehicles and other means of conveyance used by persons subject to § 325.20 for transporting in commerce or importing, any dead, dying, disabled, and diseased livestock or parts of carcasses of livestock that died otherwise than by slaughter shall be leak-proof and so constructed and equipped as to permit thorough cleaning and sanitizing. The means of conveyance so used in conveying such livestock, or parts thereof, shall be cleaned and disinfected prior to use in the transportation of any product intended for use as human food. The cleaning procedure shall include the complete removal from the means of conveyance of any fluid, parts, or product of such dead, dying, disabled, or diseased livestock and the thorough application of a disinfectant to the interior surfaces of the cargo space. Substances permitted for such use are: ( a ) “Liquified phenol” (U.S.P. strength 87 percent phenol) in the proportion of at least 6 fluid ounces to 1 gallon of water.
( b ) “Cresylic disinfectant” in the proportion of not less than 4 fluid ounces to 1 gallon of water; and such other disinfectants as are approved by the Administrator in specific cases. The use of “cresylic disinfectant” is permitted subject to the conditions prescribed in § 71.10(b) of this title.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008 of Financial
Security Assurance Holdings Ltd. (the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert P. Cochran, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



By:

/s/ ROBERT P. COCHRANChief Executive Officer
March 19, 2009


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
1

Ogulei, David

From: Andrea Geiger <andreag@cooperenvironmental.com>

Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:09 PM

To: Ogulei, David

Subject: Information request update

Hello David, 

I just wanted to contact you to let you know that I have not forgotten your information requests, but there has 

been a delay in my ability to respond. We have had international visitors every day since I returned from 

AWMA, which hasn’t left me any time to gather document, etc. It is still on my high priority list, and I hope to 

have something to you soon. 

We have been discussing strategies for getting a stack demonstration unit up and running, which I believe will 

be very helpful for any current or future consent decrees or other enforcement actions. I will let you know how 

we progress on that score. 

I do have a question – as we discussed when we met in Chicago, there are differences, albeit slight, between the 

ambient and stack Xact models. Are you interested in a list of all Xacts that exist around the world, or just the 

stack models? I could provide both, if that would be helpful. I think my main concern is that there simply aren’t 

that many stack units in existence, despite the fact that we have proven the technology works. As we discussed, 

when there is no regulatory requirement, most industry won’t have any interest in installing a system that has 

the potential to identify an emissions problem. Once a problem is identified, they would be obligated to fix it, 

which costs money – so it’s obviously easier and less expensive to remain ignorant. It’s an understandable 

position. I worry that the list of stack units we have sold will not provide what you might need for your 

objectives. I could also provide a list of ambient units. There are a few differences, and certainly the 

environmental conditions for a stack unit are much harsher than for an ambient unit, but the overall technology 

is exactly the same. I am just trying to find out if a list of the ambient units in addition to the stack units would 

be helpful for you to justify the requirement for the HWI in question. 

I promise I will be in touch as soon as possible to provide the documents and information you requested. If you 

think of anything else, please let me know. I truly apologize for the delay. 

Best Regards, 

Andrea Geiger 

Director of Sales and Marketing/Environmental Scientist 

Cooper Environmental Services, LLC 

10180 SW Nimbus Ave, Suite J6 

Portland, OR 97223 

503-670-8127, ext 0 

andreag@cooperenvironmental.com

www.cooperenvironmental.com

Innovation in Monitoring 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information intended solely for the use of the 

addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, any distribution, copying, or use of this e-mail or its attachments 

is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this message and any 

copies. Thank you.