alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES OF GABLES RESIDENTIAL TRUST


                               Jurisdiction of   Other Names Under Which
Subsidiary                      Organization     Subsidiary Does Business
----------                      ------------     ------------------------

Gables Realty Limited Partnership  Delaware     None

Gables GP, Inc.                    Texas        None

Central Apartment Management,      Texas        Gables Residential Services and
Inc.                                            Gables Corporate Accommodations

East Apartment Management, Inc.    Georgia      Gables Residential Services and
                                                Gables Corporate Accommodations

Gables-Tennessee Properties        Tennessee    None

Gables Central  Construction, Inc. Texas        None

Gables East Construction, Inc.     Georgia      None

Candlewood Gen Par, Inc.           Georgia      None

Candlewood-Indian Creek Limited    Georgia      None
Partnership

Pin Oak Green                      Texas        None

Pin Oak Park Apartments            Texas        None

GRT Villas Gen Par,                Georgia      None
Inc. (f.k.a. Candle Creek, Inc.)

GRT Villas Limited Partnership     Texas        None
§ 385.1109 Orders (Rule 1109). ( a ) Staff will issue a decision and an order granting or denying the petition in whole or in part. The order will articulate the basis for the decision, noting any dispute with the factual assertions of the petitioner.
( b ) In addition to service otherwise required under this subpart, Staff will serve the decision and order on the persons who sought and were denied an opportunity to participate in the proceeding under this subpart.
( c ) If Staff fails to issue an order granting or denying the petition for adjustment within the determination period, the petitioner may treat the application as having been denied and may, within 30 days after the close of the determination period, request review thereof as prescribed in Rule 1110(a) (review of denials). For purposes of this paragraph, “determination period” means the 150 days commencing with the filing of the petition, unless Staff for good cause extends such period.
( d ) An order of Staff issued under paragraph (a) of this section granting an adjustment, in whole or in part, is final 30 days after it is issued, unless, during such 30-day period: ( 1 ) A petition for review is filed under subpart J of this subchapter in accordance with Rule 1110(a) (review of denials) in which case the order is final when the review process under subpart J has been completed; or
( 2 ) The Commission directs that the order be reviewed under subpart J in accordance with Rule 1110(b), in which case the order is final when the review process under subpart J has been completed unless the Commission expressly states that the order shall be effective pending review proceeding.
#### § 1318.506 Documents.

The NEPA compliance staff must keep on file all final and approved environmental documents either in paper form or electronically, in accordance with TVA's records retention policy.
EXHIBIT 99.1


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 Gouverneur Bancorp Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard F. Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

February 11, 2003                      By: /s/ RICHARD F. BENNETT
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Richard F. Bennett
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
### §6714. Expedited and equalized dispute resolution for Federal regulators

#### (a) Filing in Court of Appeals

In the case of a regulatory conflict between a State insurance regulator and a Federal regulator regarding insurance issues, including whether a State law, rule, regulation, order, or interpretation regarding any insurance sales or solicitation activity is properly treated as preempted under Federal law, the Federal or State regulator may seek expedited judicial review of such determination by the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the State is located or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by filing a petition for review in such court.

#### (b) Expedited review

The United States Court of Appeals in which a petition for review is filed in accordance with subsection (a) shall complete all action on such petition, including rendering a judgment, before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date on which such petition is filed, unless all parties to such proceeding agree to any extension of such period.

#### (c) Supreme Court review

Any request for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States of any judgment of a United States Court of Appeals with respect to a petition for review under this section shall be filed with the Supreme Court of the United States as soon as practicable after such judgment is issued.

#### (d) Statute of limitation

No petition may be filed under this section challenging an order, ruling, determination, or other action of a Federal regulator or State insurance regulator after the later of—

(1) the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date on which the first public notice is made of such order, ruling, determination or other action in its final form; or

(2) the end of the 6-month period beginning on the date on which such order, ruling, determination, or other action takes effect.

#### (e) Standard of review

The court shall decide a petition filed under this section based on its review on the merits of all questions presented under State and Federal law, including the nature of the product or activity and the history and purpose of its regulation under State and Federal law, without unequal deference.

(Pub. L. 106–102, title III, §304, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1409.)
#### § 592.390 Advance information.

Upon request of an applicant, all or part of the contents of any certificate issued to such applicant may be telephoned or transmitted to the applicant or designee, at the applicant's expense.
# C_2010274EN.01002501.xml

| 9.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/25

---

Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Groupe Partouche v Commission

(Case T-315/10)

()

2010/C 274/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Groupe Partouche SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-J. Sebag, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission not to object to a concentration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission not to object to a concentration;

| — | Order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the appolicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3333 of 21 May 2010 declaring compatible with the common market and with the Agreement on the European Economic Area a proposed concentration by which Française des Jeux and Groupe Lucien Barrière acquire joint control of the undertaking Newco, which is to develop and operate an internet poker site in France.

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission should have referred examination of the concentration in question back to the French Republic, having regard to its possible significant effect on competition in France in the relevant market.

---
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 73 FR 32429, June 9, 2008.

§ 21.9 Time for decision by GAO. ( a ) GAO shall issue a decision on a protest within 100 days after it is filed. GAO will attempt to resolve a request for recommendation for reimbursement of protest costs under § 21.8(e), a request for recommendation on the amount of protest costs under § 21.8(f), or a request for reconsideration under § 21.14 within 100 days after the request is filed.
( b ) In protests where GAO uses the express option procedures in § 21.10, GAO shall issue a decision on a protest within 65 days after it is filed.
( c ) GAO, to the maximum extent practicable, shall resolve a timely supplemental protest adding one or more new grounds to an existing protest, or a timely amended protest, within the time limit established in paragraph (a) of this section for decision on the initial protest. If a supplemental or an amended protest cannot be resolved within that time limit, GAO may resolve the supplemental or amended protest using the express option procedures in § 21.10.
[61 FR 39042, July 26, 1996, as amended at 83 FR 13825, Apr. 2, 2018]
# C_2012379EN.01000602.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-37/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Regulation No 1234/2007 - Article 115 - Annex XV - Point I(2) - Appendix to Annex XV - Part A - Sales designations ‘butter’ and ‘dairy spread’ - Sales designation ‘pomazánkové máslo’ (butter spread) - List of derogations)

2012/C 379/10

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 115 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1), in conjunction with point I(2) of Annex XV to that regulation and part A of the appendix to that annex — Legislation of a Member State authorising the marketing of a product corresponding to the sales designation ‘dairy spread’ under the sales designation ‘pomazánkové máslo’ (butter spread)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by authorising pomazánkové máslo (butter spread) to be sold under the designation ‘máslo’ (butter) even though that product has a milk fat content of less than 80 % and water and dry non-fat milk-material contents of more than 16 % and 2 % respectively, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 115 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) in conjunction with the first and second subparagraphs of point I(2) of Annex XV to that regulation and points 1 and 4 of part A of the appendix to that annex; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by authorising pomazánkové máslo (butter spread) to be sold under the designation ‘máslo’ (butter) even though that product has a milk fat content of less than 80 % and water and dry non-fat milk-material contents of more than 16 % and 2 % respectively, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 115 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) in conjunction with the first and second subparagraphs of point I(2) of Annex XV to that regulation and points 1 and 4 of part A of the appendix to that annex;

| 2. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

1

---
UNITED STATES
 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C.
20549
  FORM
6-K
 
 Report of Foreign
Issuer
  Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934
  
 For the month of August,
2008
 Commission File No.
1-9987
 
  
 
 B
+ H  O C E A N C A R R I E R S, L T D.
  
 
 
 3rdFloor,
Par La Ville Place
 14 Par-La-Ville
Road
 Hamilton HM JX
Bermuda
 (Address
of principal executive offices)
  
   
 
 Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under
cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F.
 
 Form
20-F X   Form
40-F
 
 Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted
by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):
  Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted
by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):
 
 Indicate
by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this Form, the
registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant
to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
 
 Yes    NoX
  
   INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THIS FORM 6-K REPORT
  
 Set forth herein as Exhibit 99.1 is a Press Release
Announcing Unaudited
Results for the Second Quarterly Period Ending June 30, 2008 and Investment in
Offshore Accomodation Unit
  
 Signatures
 
 
 Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
duly authorized.
  
 Date  August 19, 2008
 B+H Ocean Carriers,
Ltd.
 By:  /s/ Michael S.
Hudner
 Chief
Executive Officer
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Juniper Forest Juniper Dunes

Recreation Opportunities Wilderness Area No OHV Recreation Horseback use within Camping Hiking Dispersed Hiking Horseback Motorcycle OHV Riding Wilderness Camping Riding Trails Trails Opportunities Area Joy Road 

East Elm Road (private)

R 31 E

R 32 E

30 E

31 E

18 16 17 15 14 13 15 14 13 14 18 16 17 13 Joy Road 

EastElm Road(private)

R 31 E

R 32 E

30 E

31 E

18 16 17 15 14 13 15 14 13 14 18 16 17 13

S

E

N

W

It is unlawful to trespass on private lands. State hunting and fishing regulations 

apply to private lands. Landowners are not required to post or fence their lands. 

Check with private landowners before entering their property. 

Administered Land

 Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

 (OHV use limited to designated roads and trails)

 BLM Wilderness Area (closed to OHVs)

 BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

(OHV use limited to designated roads and trails)

 Bureau of Reclamation 

Washington Dept. of

 Natural Resources

 Private or Other 

LEGEND 

Recreation

 Information

 Parking 

Transportation

 Improved Road

 Other Road or Trail,

 Access as Designated

 Private Road

 Railroad 

101 2.0

MILES

1 0 1 2.0 

KILOMETERS

U. S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Spokane District 

1103 N. Fancher 

Spokane, WA 99212 

(509) 536-1200 

Pasco-Kahlotus Road 

Pasco-Kahlotus Road

Pe er t son Road

(private) 

(private) 

Levey

R

R

R 39 E

R 40 E

T

11

N

T

10

N

T

10

N

T

9

N

S N A

KE 

RIVER 

6

8 9

5 4 3 2 3 2 1

19

30

31 32 33

29

23 23 20

10 12 11 10 11

34

28 27 26 27 26

22 21 22

35 36 34 35

25

24

6

7

7

8 9

5

4

3 2

3

2

1

19

30

31 32 33

29

23 20

10 11 12 10 11

34

28 27 26 27 26

22 23 21 22

35 34 36 35

25

24

18 13 17 16

1

12

36

25

24

1

12

36

25

24

14 13

2

23

11

26

35

2

23

11

26

35

14 15 15 14

6

7 8 9

5 4 1

19

30

31 33 32

29

20

12

28

21

36

25

24

6

7 8 9

5 4 1

19

30

31 32 33

29

20

12

28

21

36

25

24

13 18 17 16

WALLA WALLA CO

FRANKLIN CO

To Pasco 

7.5 miles 

JUNIPER DUNES 

WILDERNESS AREA 

Closed to Off-Highway Vehicles 

JUNIPER 

FOREST 

O p e n 

O H V 

A r e a 

POWERLINE 

POWERLINE 

POWERLINE 

POWERLINE 

M09-05-03
# C_2011063EN.01002902.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/29

---

Action brought on 23 December 2010 — X Technology Swiss v OHIM — Brawn (X-Undergear)

(Case T-581/10)

2011/C 63/56

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: X Technology Swiss GmbH (Wollerau, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Herbertz and R. Jung, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Brawn LLC (Weekhawken, United States of America)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 October 2010 in Case R 1580/2009-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 October 2010 in Case R 1580/2009-1;

| — | Order the defendant to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘X-Undergear’ for goods and services in Classes 23 and 25.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Brawn LLC.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word mark ‘UNDERGEAR’ for goods in Class 25.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
### §4109. Coordination and review of budget requests; Office of Science and Technology Policy; Office of Management and Budget

(a) The Office of Science and Technology Policy shall—

(1) review all agency and department budget requests related to the Arctic transmitted pursuant to section 4107(a)(5) of this title, in accordance with the national Arctic research policy and the 5-year program under section 4107(a)(2) and section 4108 of this title, respectively; and

(2) consult closely with the Interagency Committee and the Commission to guide the Office of Science and Technology Policy's efforts.

(b)(1) The Office of Management and Budget shall consider all Federal agency requests for research related to the Arctic as one integrated, coherent, and multiagency request which shall be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget prior to submission of the President's annual budget request for its adherence to the Plan. The Commission shall, after submission of the President's annual budget request, review the request and report to Congress on adherence to the Plan.

(2) The Office of Management and Budget shall seek to facilitate planning for the design, procurement, maintenance, deployment, and operations of icebreakers needed to provide a platform for Arctic research by allocating all funds necessary to support icebreaking operations, except for recurring incremental costs associated with specific projects, to the Coast Guard.

(Pub. L. 98–373, title I, §110, July 31, 1984, 98 Stat. 1248.)

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

#### Termination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions of law requiring submittal to Congress of any annual, semiannual, or other regular periodic report listed in House Document No. 103–7 (in which the review of the President's annual budget request and report to Congress under subsec. (b)(1) of this section is listed on page 155), see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance.

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Coast Guard, including the authorities and functions of the Secretary of Transportation relating thereto, to the Department of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 468(b), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
# C_2013009EN.01003402.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/34

---

Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-606/11) (1)

1

2013/C 9/58

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1

---
# C_2012331EN.01001903.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, beige and dark red)

(Case T-328/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, beige and dark red - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2012/C 331/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt, then D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2010 (Case R 190/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in dark grey, light grey, beige and dark red as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

---