alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5701. Short title; findings

#### (a) Short title

This chapter may be cited as the "Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act".

#### (b) Findings

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The use of pay-per-call services, most commonly through the use of 900 telephone numbers, has grown exponentially in the past few years into a national, billion-dollar industry as a result of recent technological innovations. Such services are convenient to consumers, cost-effective to vendors, and profitable to communications common carriers.

(2) Many pay-per-call businesses provide valuable information, increase consumer choices, and stimulate innovative and responsive services that benefit the public.

(3) The interstate nature of the pay-per-call industry means that its activities are beyond the reach of individual States and therefore requires Federal regulatory treatment to protect the public interest.

(4) The lack of nationally uniform regulatory guidelines has led to confusion for callers, subscribers, industry participants, and regulatory agencies as to the rights of callers and the oversight responsibilities of regulatory authorities, and has allowed some pay-per-call businesses to engage in practices that abuse the rights of consumers.

(5) Some interstate pay-per-call businesses have engaged in practices which are misleading to the consumer, harmful to the public interest, or contrary to accepted standards of business practices and thus cause harm to the many reputable businesses that are serving the public.

(6) Because the consumer most often incurs a financial obligation as soon as a pay-per-call transaction is completed, the accuracy and descriptiveness of vendor advertisements become crucial in avoiding consumer abuse. The obligation for accuracy should include price-per-call and duration-of-call information, odds disclosure for lotteries, games, and sweepstakes, and obligations for obtaining parental consent from callers under 18.

(7) The continued growth of the legitimate pay-per-call industry is dependent upon consumer confidence that unfair and deceptive behavior will be effectively curtailed and that consumers will have adequate rights of redress.

(8) Vendors of telephone-billed goods and services must also feel confident in their rights and obligations for resolving billing disputes if they are to use this new marketplace for the sale of products of more than nominal value.

(Pub. L. 102–556, §1, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4181.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 102–556, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4181, which enacted this chapter and section 228 of Title 47, Telecommunications, amended sections 227 and 302a of Title 47, enacted provisions set out as a note under section 302a of Title 47, and amended provisions set out as a note under section 227 of Title 47. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mniteb**~tate5** 

# <!Court of**~eaI5** 

# for !bejf 

# eberaI (!Circuit

REX T. NELSON, Petitioner, 

### v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTIONBOARD, Respondent.

2010-3152 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. CH07520BOBll-I-2. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER Upon consideration ofthe unopposed motion to reform the official caption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as the respondent, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above. (2) The Board should calculate its briefdue date from the date offiling ofthis order.NELSONV. MSPB 

## SEP 222010 Date cc: Rex T. Nelson s20 Lauren S. Moore, Esq. Sara B. Rearden, Esq. FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 2



## u.s.

## COUJ~~PrALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

## SEP 22 l010

JAN HQRBALY CLERK
§ 1308.37 Decisions. ( a ) The Hearing Officer's decision shall be in writing. Except as provided by § 1308.35 or § 1308.36, the decision shall contain complete findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties may be directed to submit proposed findings and conclusions. A decision against a Contractor on a claim shall include notice of the Contractor's rights under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 10(a) of the Act.
( b ) If the decision denies any part of a Contractor's claim for lack of support and the Hearing Officer is of the opinion that the Contractor's inability to support that part is within § 1308.6 and section 5 of the Act, the decision shall not state that opinion, but contemporaneously with the decision the Hearing Officer shall separately notify TVA's General Counsel of that opinion and the reasons therefor.
( c ) Not later than 10 days after receipt of the decision, a party may move to alter or amend the findings or make additional findings and amend the conclusions and decision accordingly. Such a motion may be combined with a motion under § 1308.38. This time period cannot be extended.
# C_2010234EN.01003901.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/39

---

Order of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Strålfors v OHIM (IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-212/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Application initiating proceedings - Formal requirements - Manifest inadmissibility)

2010/C 234/71

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Strålfors AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M.S. Nielsen, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2010 (Case R 1112/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of word sign IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Strålfors AB shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Strålfors AB shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.

1

---
§ 1308.6 Fraudulent claims. ( a ) If a Contractor is unable to support any part of a claim and it is determined that such inability is attributable to the Contractor's misrepresentation of fact or fraud, the Contractor shall be liable to TVA, as set out in section 5 of the Act, for: ( 1 ) An amount equal to the unsupported part of the claim; plus
( 2 ) All TVA's costs attributable to reviewing that part of the claim.
( b ) The term “misrepresentation of fact” has the meaning given it in section 2(7) of the Act.
( c ) Prior to TVA's filing suit for amounts due under this section, TVA shall provide the Contractor with a copy of any opinion under § 1308.16 or § 1308.37(b), and shall request the Contractor to pay voluntarily the amount TVA asserts is due to it.
( d ) A determination by TVA that fraud or misrepresentation of the fact has been committed is not subject to decision under a disputes clause.
( e ) The provisions of this section are in addition to whatever penalties or remedies may otherwise be provided by law.
### §717d. Fixing rates and charges; determination of cost of production or transportation

#### (a) Decreases in rates

Whenever the Commission, after a hearing had upon its own motion or upon complaint of any State, municipality, State commission, or gas distributing company, shall find that any rate, charge, or classification demanded, observed, charged, or collected by any natural-gas company in connection with any transportation or sale of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or that any rule, regulation, practice, or contract affecting such rate, charge, or classification is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential, the Commission shall determine the just and reasonable rate, charge, classification, rule, regulation, practice, or contract to be thereafter observed and in force, and shall fix the same by order: Provided, however, That the Commission shall have no power to order any increase in any rate contained in the currently effective schedule of such natural gas company on file with the Commission, unless such increase is in accordance with a new schedule filed by such natural gas company; but the Commission may order a decrease where existing rates are unjust, unduly discriminatory, preferential, otherwise unlawful, or are not the lowest reasonable rates.

#### (b) Costs of production and transportation

The Commission upon its own motion, or upon the request of any State commission, whenever it can do so without prejudice to the efficient and proper conduct of its affairs, may investigate and determine the cost of the production or transportation of natural gas by a natural-gas company in cases where the Commission has no authority to establish a rate governing the transportation or sale of such natural gas.

(June 21, 1938, ch. 556, §5, 52 Stat. 823.)
<PAGE>

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-84754, 33-84756, and 333-16765 of MK Gold Company on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 3, 2000 on the consolidated financial statements of MK Gold Company
as of December 31, 1999 and for each of the two years in the period ended
December 31, 1999, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MK Gold
Company for the year ended December 31, 2000.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Salt Lake City, Utah
March 28, 2001
Creation Date Mon Nov  9, 1998  03:02 PM                            Page    1
CMB95B

From: The Chase Manhattan Bank

To:   Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.


                   MONTHLY CERTIFICATEHOLDER'S REPORT
                   ----------------------------------

Due Period 36 Beginning Date                     10/01/1998
Due Period 36 End Date                           10/31/1998
Determination Date                               11/10/1998
Remittance Date                                  11/16/1998


I.    Monthly Principal and Principal Carryover Shortfall to Certificateholders
      (Per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                  $ 11.1134975206

II.   Monthly Interest and Unpaid Interest to Certificateholders
      (Per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                   $ 0.6862384512

III.  Monthly Expenses Summary

      A. Servicing Fee Disbursement                                $ 173,997.87
      B. Cash Collateral Account Expense                                 $ 0.00
      C. Total Expenses paid
         (per $1000 of Original Principal Amount)                $ 0.1163116000

IV.   Cash Collateral Account Deposit Amount                             $ 0.00

V.    Outstanding Advance Summary

      A. From Prior Period                                       $ 3,850,076.55
      B. From Current Period                                     $ 3,827,356.36
      C. Change in Amount Between Periods (Lines B - A)            $ -22,720.19

VI.   Pool Factor Information

      A. Certificate Principal Balance                         $ 192,172,064.51
      B. Initial Certificate Balance                         $ 1,495,963,171.74
      C. Pool Factor (Lines A / B)                               0.128460424789

VII.  Available Cash Collateral Account Information for Due Period

      A. Available Cash Collateral Amount                       $ 11,219,723.79
      B. Available Cash Collateral Amount Percentage            5.373496622588%

VIII. Required Cash Collateral Amount

      A. For the Current Collection Period                      $ 11,219,723.79
      B. For the Next Collection Period                         $ 11,219,723.79
# C_2013114EN.01003002.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 7 March 2013 — Rütgers Germany GmbH and Others v ECHA

(Case T-94/10) (1)

1

(REACH - Identification of anthracene oil as a substance of very high concern - Actions for annulment - Actionable measure - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Proportionality)

2013/C 114/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Rütgers Germany GmbH, (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany); Rütgers Belgium NV (Zelzate, Belgium); Deza, a.s., (Valašske Meziříčí, Czech Republic); Industrial Química del Nalón, SA (Oviedo, Spain) and Bilbaí (Castrop-Rauxel, Germany)) (represented by: initially by K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor, and subsequently by K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana,)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for the partial annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 13 January 2010, to identify anthracene oil (EC No 292-602-7) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, in accordance with Article 59 of REACH

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA and Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA and Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
### §687m. Periodic issuance of guarantees and trust certificates

The Administration shall issue guarantees under section 683 of this title and trust certificates under section 687l of this title at periodic intervals of not less than every 12 months and shall do so at such shorter intervals as its 1 deems appropriate, taking into consideration the amount and number of such guarantees or trust certificates.

(Pub. L. 85–699, title III, §320, formerly §322, as added Pub. L. 100–590, title I, §106(a), Nov. 3, 1988, 102 Stat. 2993; renumbered §320 and amended Pub. L. 104–208, div. D, title II, §208(h)(1)(E), (G), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–747; Pub. L. 105–135, title II, §215(e), Dec. 2, 1997, 111 Stat. 2603; Pub. L. 106–9, §2(d)(2), Apr. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 18.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 320 of Pub. L. 85–699 was renumbered section 318 and is classified to section 687k of this title.

#### Amendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–9 substituted "12 months" for "6 months".

1997—Pub. L. 105–135 substituted "6 months" for "three months".

1996—Pub. L. 104–208 made technical amendment to reference in original act which appears in text as reference to section 687l of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of 1997 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–135 effective Oct. 1, 1997, see section 3 of Pub. L. 105–135, set out as a note under section 631 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "it".
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gilman + Ciocia, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis Conroy,
Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the
Company.


By:   /s/ Dennis Conroy
      --------------------------
Name: Dennis Conroy
      Chief Accounting Officer

Date: September 27, 2005


                                    Page 72
# C_2012217EN.01001901.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Paul Hartmann AG v OHIM — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)

(Case T-342/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MESILETTE - Earlier national and international word marks MEDINETTE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 217/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (Göteborg, Sweden)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1222/2009-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Paul Hartmann AG and Mölnlycke Health Care AB.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1222/2009-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1222/2009-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

1

---
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Actua 2016 Performance Plan 
 The
Board of Directors of Actua Corporation (together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, “Actua”) hereby establishes this 2016 Performance Plan (this “Plan”). The purposes of this Plan are to (1) advance the interests of
Actua’s stockholders by providing certain officers and other employees with bonus payments and/or vesting of performance shares upon the achievement of specified corporate and individual goals and (2) help Actua attract and retain key
employees. 
 The Compensation Committee of Actua’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”) will administer and interpret this Plan. All
decisions and determinations of the Committee with respect to this Plan will be final and binding on all parties. 
 Actua’s 2016 goals include
quantitative and qualitative goals. The relative weighting of each element of the Actua-specific goals is described below. 
 Eighty percent (80%) of
the Plan is tied to the accomplishment of quantitative goals. The achievement of a specified consolidated GAAP revenue goal accounts for twenty percent (20%) of the Plan, the achievement of a specified bookings goal accounts for thirty percent
(30%) of the Plan, and the achievement of a specified consolidated adjusted non-GAAP cash flow from operations goal accounts for thirty percent (30%) of the Plan. 

Twenty percent (20%) of the Plan is tied to execution against the following qualitative goals: (1) execution of strategic initiatives,
(2) allocation of capital and corporate development, (3) brand enhancement and (4) reaction to unforeseen market/business conditions. 
 Following the
end of the 2016 fiscal year, the Committee will evaluate Actua’s 2016 performance and determine the extent (expressed as a percentage) to which the corporate and individual goals, as applicable, were achieved (such percentage, the
“Achievement Percentage”). The Committee will then award bonuses and/or provide for the vesting of performance shares in accordance with each individual’s Achievement Percentage under the terms of this Plan.
**Exhibit      10.1**

----

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT  TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Bernard      Kasriel, Chief Executive Officer of Lafarge, a *société anonyme* organized      under French law, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual      Report of Lafarge on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003,      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,      to my knowledge, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained      in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of Lafarge as of the      dates and for the periods set forth therein.: 

Date: March    26, 2004 

 

|   | /s/        BERNARD KASRIEL     |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |                                |
|   | Bernard        Kasriel         |
|   | Chief        Executive Officer |

A signed original    of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act    of 2002 has been provided to Lafarge and will be retained by Lafarge and    furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

----
# C_2011204EN.01001202.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2011 — Folien Fischer AG and Fofitec AG v RITRAMA SpA

(Case C-133/11)

2011/C 204/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Folien Fischer AG and Fofitec AG

Applicants:

Defendant: RITRAMA SpA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction in matters relating to tort or delict also exists in respect of an action for a negative declaration in which a potential injuring party asserts that the party potentially injured by a particular situation has no claim in tort or delict (in this case, infringement of the provisions of anti-trust law)?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---