alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1315.205 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 1315.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or an extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, “professional and technical services” shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting of a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( c ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( d ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
### §3007. Jurisdiction and venue

#### (a) District court jurisdiction

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any civil action under this chapter, without regard to the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy.

#### (b) Venue; service of process

A civil action under this chapter may be brought in any district court of the United States for a district located in the host State or the off-track State, and all process in any such civil action may be served in any judicial district of the United States.

#### (c) Concurrent State court jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States pursuant to this section shall be concurrent with that of any State court of competent jurisdiction located in the host State or the off-track State.

(Pub. L. 95–515, §8, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1814.)
**Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2011 – Land Wien v Commission**

**(Case T-267/10)**

Nuclear power – Application initiating proceedings – Action for annulment – Decision of the Commission not to take any further action in respect of a complaint concerning a project for extension of
blocks of a nuclear power plant – Action for a declaration of failure to act – Failure by the Commission to send all documents requested relevant to that project – Formal requirements – Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute
– Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Lack of clarity – Inadmissibility (Statute of the
Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see
paras 17-20, 24-25)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Commission decision merely
communicating information concerning the state of EU law in the area of nuclear safety – Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see
paras 28-30)*

3.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings – Not included (Arts
258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 33-34)*

4.                     *Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Commission refusal to request the agreement
of a Member State in order to send certain documents to the applicant – No obligation to act – Appropriate remedy – Action
for annulment – Action for failure to act inadmissible (Arts 263 TFEU and 265 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation
No 1049/2011, Arts 7 and 8) (see paras 41-45)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Firstly, in essence, annulment of the Commission decision of 25 March 2010 not to take any further action in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning the project for extension of blocks 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia and, secondly, an action in respect of failure to act, within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission failed to grant the applicant full access to the documents requested relevant to that project, in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43). |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | The Land Wien is ordered to pay the costs. |
Exhibit 3.6

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

OF

AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

CAMBRIDGE HEART, INC.

Pursuant to
Section 242 of the general Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, Cambridge Heart, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the Corporation), does hereby certify:

FIRST:         That the Board of Directors of the Corporation, at a meeting on
April 26, 2005 duly adopted resolutions proposing and declaring advisable the following amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation:



|          |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|--------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|RESOLVED: |  | That the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be amended by deleting the first paragraph of Article FOURTH in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu
thereof:                                                                                                                              
|          | 
|          |  | FOURTH. The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 152,000,000 shares, consisting of
(i) 150,000,000 shares of Common Stock, $.001 par value per share (Common Stock), and (ii) 2,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, $.001 par value per share (Preferred Stock).

SECOND:    That the stockholders of the Corporation, at the
2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on June 10, 2005, duly approved said proposed Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation in accordance with Section 242 of the general Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed by its President on this
16th day of June, 2005.



CAMBRIDGE HEART, INC.By:

/s/    DAVID A.
CHAZANOVITZDavid A. Chazanovitz President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 98.20 Embryos refused entry.

If any embryos are determined to be ineligible for importation into the United States upon arrival at the port of entry, the importer must remove the embryos from the United States within 30 days, or the embryos will be destroyed.
## SERVE D JANUAR Y 13 , 201 0

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S iJ:. i I U . i i .\.\-j \^,un\>\J n WASHINGTON , D C , . ^ .- . . - •..- , • ' . • '••'. - J IN TH E MATTE RO F SMIT H CABL E SYSTEMS , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP009AL001 2 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S No . FAA-2009-097 6 

### NOTIC E O FHEARIN GDATE S NOTIC E I S HEREB Y GIVE N tha t testimon y an devidenc e wil l b e hear dan dconsidere d o n Jun e 25,2010 , at

th e U.S . Distric t

Cour t fo r th e Distric t

of Alaska , 22 2 W . 7" " Avenue , Anchorage , Alask a99513. ' Hearing s wil l commenc e at 9:0 0 a.m . an dconclud e at 4:3 0 p.m . eac hday . Th e partie s shoul dvacat e th e courthous e o n o r befor e 5:0 0 p.m . eac hday . Settle dcase s wil l no t b e remove dfro mth e docke t unti l th e Judg e receive s th e prope r pleading(s) . Pleading s ma y b e forwarde db y fax , expres s mail , courie r o r posta l service . S O ORDERED . ichar dC . Goodwi n U.S . Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

' Th e partie s ar

e advisedt o chec k wit hth e Clerk' s office to confir

mthe exact

courtroo mo n the da y of the hearing .FA A Docke t No . CP09AL001 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Ronal dG . Smith , Presiden t Smit hCabl e Systems , Inc . Throug hCounse l Bren t R . Cole , Respondent' s Counse l Marsto n & Cole , P.C . 82 1 N Street , Suit e 20 8 Anchorage , A K

99501-213 6 TEL : 907-277-800 1 FAX : 907-277-800 2 Glen n H . Brown , Complainant' s Counse l Senio r Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counsel , AAL- 7 Alaskan Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 22 2 Wes t 7 * Avenue , #1 4 Anchorage , A K

99513-758 7 TEL : 907-271-527 1 FAX : 907-271-280 0 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S .E . Eas t Buildm g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000, Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .
Request for Information OC Films (FAA-2015-2869) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Bicer: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-2869). 

This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date 

listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your 

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by November 30, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999 .

 

FAA Office of Rulemaking 

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:44 AM 

To: info@ocfilms.com
# C_2010113EN.01002901.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (France) lodged on 22 February 2010 — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Bourdil — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Baba-Pom’

((Case C-97/10) - (Case C-98/10) - (Case C-99/10))

2010/C 113/45

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (Landes)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AG2R Prévoyance

Applicant:

Defendants: SARL Bourdil, SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie, SARL Baba-Pom’

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Does an extensive collective agreement granting an exclusive right to the management of a single scheme for the supplementary reimbursement of healthcare costs (in this case, to AG2R Prévoyance) infringe the provisions of Article 82 of the EC Treaty where that agreement does not provide for and even expressly excludes any waiver of affiliation to that scheme (in so far as the Community competition rules do not obstruct the performance of the tasks assigned to AG2R Prévoyance, entrusted with the scheme)?

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00204-CV

ROMA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellant

v.

Noelia M. GUILLEN, Raul Moreno, Dagoberto Salinas, and Tony Saenz,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-13-64

David Wellington Chew, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 26, 2013

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). Because the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties regarding the 

assessment of costs, we order all costs assessed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d)

(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We have issued our reports dated February 13, 2004, except for paragraph 5 of Note 6, as to which the date is February 25, 2004, andFebruary 13, 2004, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule, respectively, included in the Annual Report of CellStar Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of said reports in the Registration Statements of CellStar Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-89298, effective May 29, 2002, File No. 333-77415, effective April 30, 1999, File No. 333-23381, effective October 3, 1997 and File No.33-87754, effective December 23, 1994). 

 

GRANT THORNTON LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

February 25, 2004
§ 50.7 Destruction of animals. ( a ) *Slaughter or disposal.* Livestock to be destroyed because of tuberculosis must be shipped direct to slaughter under permit to a Federal or State inspected slaughtering establishment or be disposed of by rendering, burial, or incinerating in an approved manner under supervision of an APHIS or State employee.
( b ) *Time limit for destruction of animals.* Livestock for which Federal indemnity may be paid because of tuberculosis must be destroyed and carcass disposal completed within 15 days after the date of appraisal, except that the appropriate Veterinarian in Charge, for reasons satisfactory to him, may extend the time limit for slaughter to 30 days when request for such extension is received by him prior to the expiration of the original 15-day period allowed, and the Administrator may extend the time limit for slaughter beyond 30 days, upon request in specific cases and for reasons satisfactory to him.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0051) [40 FR 27009, June 26, 1975, as amended at 45 FR 32287, May 16, 1980; 52 FR 39614, Oct. 23, 1987; 56 FR 36998, Aug. 2, 1991; 60 FR 37809, July 24, 1995; 63 FR 34264, June 24, 1998; 67 FR 7591, Feb. 20, 2002]
# C_2010301EN.01005501.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/55

---

Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Emesa-Trefilería and Industrias Galyca v Commission

(Case T-406/10)

()

2010/C 301/87

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Emesa-Trefilería, SA (Arteixo, Spain) and Industrias Galyca, SA (Vitoria, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martin, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested Decision insofar as it affects the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested Decision insofar as it affects the applicants;

| — | in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment of Commission decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 in Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by participating in a continuing agreement or concerted practice in the pre-stressing steel sector at the pan-European and/or national/regional levels. Furthermore, they seek the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on them.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

First, they claim that the Commission has violated the fundamental right to an impartial tribunal provided for in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“ECHR”) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in so far as the fine was imposed by an administrative authority which holds simultaneously powers of investigation and sanction.

Second, they submit that the Commission has illegally refused to grant the applicants a reduction of their fines under the 2002 Leniency Notice (1), since the decision relies extensively on evidence originating from Emesa.

1

Finally, they contend that the Commission has illegally refused to grant the applicants a partial immunity under paragraph 23 of the 2002 Leniency Notice, although Emesa provided decisive evidence having a bearing on the duration and gravity of the infringement.

---

(1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases, OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3

1

---
# C_2007082EN.01005702.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/57

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2007 — Rounis v Commission

(Case F-78/05) (1)

1

(2007/C 82/121)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005, p. 22.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# DATES:

April 27, 2011 (Closed).

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         Michael Dalmat, Dr.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Director, Extramural Research Program Office, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop K-92, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6423, E-mail:                         *MED1@CDC.GOV.*

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: March 7, 2011.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2011-5759 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P