alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §4106. Implementation of Arctic research policy

#### (a) National Science Foundation and Director; functions

The National Science Foundation is designated as the lead agency responsible for implementing Arctic research policy, and the Director of the National Science Foundation shall insure that the requirements of section 4107 of this title are fulfilled.

#### (b) Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee; establishment; represented agencies; Chairperson

(1) The President shall establish an Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Interagency Committee").

(2) The Interagency Committee shall be composed of representatives of the following Federal agencies or offices:

(A) the National Science Foundation;

(B) the Department of Commerce;

(C) the Department of Defense;

(D) the Department of Energy;

(E) the Department of the Interior;

(F) the Department of State;

(G) the Department of Transportation;

(H) the Department of Health and Human Services;

(I) the Department of Homeland Security;

(J) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;

(K) the Environmental Protection Agency; and

(L) any other agency or office deemed appropriate.

(3) The representative of the National Science Foundation shall serve as the Chairperson of the Interagency Committee.

(Pub. L. 98–373, title I, §107, July 31, 1984, 98 Stat. 1246; Pub. L. 109–241, title IX, §902(g), July 11, 2006, 120 Stat. 567.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Subsec. (b)(2)(I) to (L). Pub. L. 109–241 added subpar. (I) and redesignated former subpars. (I) to (K) as (J) to (L), respectively.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Designation of the National Science and Technology Council to Coordinate Certain Activities Under the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984

Memorandum of President of the United States, July 22, 2010, 75 F.R. 44063, provided:

Memorandum for the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (Title I of Public Law 98–373) (the "Act"), I hereby assign to the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) responsibility to coordinate activities assigned in sections 107 and 108 of the Act to the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, including through committees of the NSTC.

The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Barack Obama.
### §7262. Management assessment of internal controls

#### (a) Rules required

The Commission shall prescribe rules requiring each annual report required by section 78m(a) or 78o(d) of this title to contain an internal control report, which shall—

(1) state the responsibility of management for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting; and

(2) contain an assessment, as of the end of the most recent fiscal year of the issuer, of the effectiveness of the internal control structure and procedures of the issuer for financial reporting.

#### (b) Internal control evaluation and reporting

With respect to the internal control assessment required by subsection (a), each registered public accounting firm that prepares or issues the audit report for the issuer, other than an issuer that is an emerging growth company (as defined in section 78c of this title), shall attest to, and report on, the assessment made by the management of the issuer. An attestation made under this subsection shall be made in accordance with standards for attestation engagements issued or adopted by the Board. Any such attestation shall not be the subject of a separate engagement.

#### (c) Exemption for smaller issuers

Subsection (b) shall not apply with respect to any audit report prepared for an issuer that is neither a "large accelerated filer" nor an "accelerated filer" as those terms are defined in Rule 12b–2 of the Commission (17 C.F.R. 240.12b–2).

(Pub. L. 107–204, title IV, §404, July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 789; Pub. L. 111–203, title IX, §989G(a), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1948; Pub. L. 112–106, title I, §103, Apr. 5, 2012, 126 Stat. 310.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2012—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–106 inserted ", other than an issuer that is an emerging growth company (as defined in section 78c of this title)," before "shall attest to".

2010—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–203 added subsec. (c).

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

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5301 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.
### §2434. Internal productivity

Each department, agency, and independent establishment of the Federal Government shall identify, develop, initiate, and support appropriate programs, systems, procedures, policies, and techniques to improve the productivity of such departments and agencies, including the implementation, where desirable, of specific programs recommended, supported, or implemented by the Center.

(Pub. L. 94–136, title III, §304, Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 741.)
#### Riverside Inn Real Estate Partnership, LP, Respondent, v Niagara Gorge Jet Boating, Ltd., Doing Business as Whirlpool Jetboat, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 738]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County *1329(Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered September 20, 2005. The order, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and granted plaintiff judgment in the amount of $528,643.28.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 inasmuch as plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and defendant failed to raise *an*issue of fact *(see Gittleson v*Dempster, 148 AD2d 578 [1989], *lv denied*74 NY2d 603 [1989]). Plaintiff established as a matter of law that defendant defaulted under the promissory note at issue by failing to make the required payment in September 2004, and plaintiff further established that it provided defendant with adequate notice of default *(see generally Abax, Inc. v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc.,*8 AD3d 92 [2004]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, it is not entitled to a setoff of the amount of damages it owes to plaintiff based on the alleged violation of a lease between defendant and a third party (see *Stevens v Phlo Corp.,*288 AD2d 56 [2001]). Present—Kehoe, J.P., Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
§ 2.13 Design and construction. ( a ) The Commission recognizes the importance of protecting and enhancing natural, historic, scenic, and recreational values at projects licensed or proposed to be licensed under the Federal Power Act.
( b ) In furtherance of these policies, the Commission will not ( 1 ) permit the amendment of any license for the purpose of construction of additional facilities or
( 2 ) authorize the disposition of any interest in project lands for construction of any type, unless a showing is made that the construction will be designed to avoid or minimize conflict with the natural, historic, and scenic values and resources of the project area.
(Secs. 3, 4, 15, 16, 301, 304, 308, and 309 (41 Stat. 1063-1066, 1068, 1072, 1075; 49 Stat. 838, 839, 840, 841, 854-856, 858-859; 82 Stat. 617; 16 U.S.C. 796, 797, 803, 808, 809, 816, 825, 825b, 825c, 825g, 825h, 826i), as amended, Secs. 8, 10, and 16 (52 Stat. 825-826, 830; 15 U.S.C. 717g, 717i, 717o))
[Order 414, 35 FR 18586, Dec. 8, 1970, as amended by Order 567, 42 FR 30612, June 16, 1977; Order 737, 75 FR 43402, July 26, 2010; Order 756, 77 FR 4893, Feb. 1, 2012; 77 FR 8095, Feb. 14, 2012]
### §6904. Qualified organizations

For purposes of eligibility for assistance under this chapter, a qualified organization shall be—

(1) a nonprofit microenterprise development organization or program (or a group or collaborative thereof) that has a demonstrated record of delivering microenterprise services to disadvantaged entrepreneurs;

(2) an intermediary;

(3) a microenterprise development organization or program that is accountable to a local community, working in conjunction with a State or local government or Indian tribe; or

(4) an Indian tribe acting on its own, if the Indian tribe can certify that no private organization or program referred to in this paragraph exists within its jurisdiction.

(Pub. L. 103–325, title I, §175, as added Pub. L. 106–102, title VII, §725, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1473.)
§ 94.2 Fresh (chilled or frozen) products (other than meat), and milk and milk products of ruminants and swine. ( a ) The importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) products (other than meat and milk and milk products) derived from ruminants or swine, originating in, shipped from, or transiting any region designated in § 94.1(a) as a region affected with foot-and-mouth disease is prohibited, except as provided in § 94.3 and parts 95 and 96 of this chapter.
( b ) The importation of milk and milk products of ruminants and swine originating in, shipped from, or transiting any region designated in § 94.1(a) as a region affected with foot-and-mouth disease is prohibited, except as provided in § 94.16.
[40 FR 44123, Sept. 25, 1975, as amended at 62 FR 56022, Oct. 28, 1997; 77 FR 1392, Jan. 10, 2012; 83 FR 15493, Apr. 11, 2018]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5593]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending February 26, 2011

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2002-11481.
    Date Filed: February 22, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: March 15, 2011.

Description

    Application of Edelweiss Air AG requesting an amendment to its 
foreign air carrier permit in order to conduct scheduled and charter 
foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail under the 
U.S.-Switzerland Air Transport Agreement (``Open Skies'') signed and 
effective June 21, 2010.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0032.
    Date Filed: February 22, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: March 15, 2011.

Description

    Application of Twin Cities Air Service, LLC requesting authority to 
operate scheduled passenger service as a commuter air carrier.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-5593 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
# C_2010080EN.01003502.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/35

---

Action brought on 18 January 2010 — CheckMobile v OHIM (carcheck)

(Case T-14/10)

2010/C 80/59

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CheckMobile GmbH — The Process Solution Company (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by K. Lodigkeit, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Fourth Board of Appeal) of 18. November 2009 (Case R 595/2009-4), in so far as it dismissed the application for registration of ‘carcheck’ in accordance with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Fourth Board of Appeal) of 18. November 2009 (Case R 595/2009-4), in so far as it dismissed the application for registration of ‘carcheck’ in accordance with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94,

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘carcheck’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45 (Application No 7 368 681)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the Examiner’s Decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (1), since the Board of Appeal interpreted the absolute ground for refusal to register a mark, based on the exclusively descriptive character of the signs of which it consists, too broadly

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1)

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of CLSTHoldings, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal yearended November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies,in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.             TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
|   | /s/ Robert A. Kaiser                                                   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert A. Kaiser, Chief Executive Officer and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

Date: March 2, 2009

 

----
# C_2011013EN.01002102.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 2 November 2010 — Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc v Comptroller-General of Patents

(Case C-518/10)

()

2011/C 13/39

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc

Applicants:

Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

If the criteria for deciding whether a product is ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ under Article 3(a) o the Regulation (1) include or consist of an assessment of whether the supply of the product would infringe the basic patent, does it make any difference to the analysis if infringement is by way of indirect or contributory infringement based on Article 26 of the Community Patent Convention, enacted as s60(2) Patents Act 1977 in the UK, and the corresponding provisions in the laws of other Member States of the Community?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products

1

OJ L 152, p. 1

---
Attachment 006– TS1201UC – MANUFACTURING PROCESS

1 of 2 page s 

# SanitizedAttachment 006 – TS1201UC – MANUFACTURING PROCESS

2 of 2 page s 

# sanitized
# C_2013260EN.01000902.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG, formerly New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vallis K.-Vallis A. & Co. OE

(Case C-621/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Application for registration of the Community word mark FISHBONE - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national figurative mark FISHBONE BEACHWEAR - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Taking into account additional evidence not submitted within the time-limit set - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 42(2) and (3) and Article 76(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 22(2))

2013/C 260/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG, formerly New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH (represented by: V. Spitz, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent), Vallis K. — Vallis A. & Co. O.E

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case T-415/09 New Yorker SHK Jeans v OHIM by which that court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘FISHBONE’, for goods in Classes 18 and 25, against decision R 1051/2008-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 July 2009, rejecting in part the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing in part registration of that mark in the context of the opposition formed by the proprietor of the national mark ‘FISHBONE BEACHWEAR’ for the goods in Class 25, and the national sign ‘Fishbone’ used in business — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Taking into account additional evidence

New Yorker SHK Jeans

OHIM

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 19142 Civilian noninstitutional population Number in thousands 35 to 39 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU00024934Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Population Level - 35-39 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:08:53 PM)
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concluded that this case was suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD WESLEY CHURCH, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. STATE OF ARIZONA and CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. No. 11-17374 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01563-DGC
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 15, 2013 ** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Ronald Wesley Church appeals from th e district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 

# FILED
JAN 22 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 and 2253(a). We affirm. We conclude that there is insufficien t evidence to find that Church’s counsel performed deficiently. Even if Church’s c ounsel had performed deficiently in failing to adequately inform the state trial court as to Church’s conditional competency and judicially mandated requirement to take competency-restoring medication, however, Church has failed to show prejudice becau se the state trial judge engaged in an extended colloquy with Church to evaluate Church’s competency on the day of trial, which questioning confirmed to the trial judgethat Church was competent. Given the trial court’s first-hand evaluati on of Church on the day of tria l, we conclude that there is no reasonable probability that if Church’s counsel had presented complete information to the trial court as to hi s conditional competency and asked for a continuance on that basis that the trial c ourt would have granted such a continuance. We thus conclude that the last reasone d Arizona state court decision denying Church post-conviction relief was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694–96 (1984). AFFIRMED.
§ 157.15 Requirements for applications covering acquisitions. An application for a certificate authorizing acquisition of facilities, in addition to complying with the applicable provisions of §§ 157.5 through 157.14, shall include a statement showing: ( a ) The exact legal name of the vendor, lessor, or other party in interest (hereinafter referred to as “vendor”) the State or other laws under which vendor was organized, location of vendor's principal place of business, and a description of the business, operation or property of vendor covered by the application.
( b ) Any certificate from the Commission, held by vendor, relating directly to the facilities which applicant seeks to acquire, citing the order, date thereof, docket designation, and title of the proceeding; reference to and designation of any companion applications by vendor for permission and approval pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act.
( c ) The manner in which the facilities are to be acquired, the consideration to be paid, the method of arriving at the amount thereof, and anticipated expenses in addition to the consideration.
( d ) The facilities to be acquired, their present use, their proposed use after acquisition, and whether they constitute all of vendor's facilities.
( e ) Any franchise, license, or permit respecting the facilities involved, showing expiration date thereof, and the effect of the proposed acquisition thereon.
[17 FR 7389, Aug. 14, 1952]