alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1232a. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–178, title IV, §401(g)(7)(A), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 534

Section, Pub. L. 91–614, title III, §304, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1845, related to Federal manufacturers excise tax on labels and provided for violations and penalties. It was not a part of the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, which comprises this chapter generally.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 92–178, title IV, §401(g)(7)(B), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 534, provided that: "Subparagraph (A) [repealing this section] shall apply to acts (or failures to act) after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 10, 1971]."
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5586]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER11-2997-000]


Vectren Retail, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Vectren Retail, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is March 24, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
    There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables 
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to 
a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, 
please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#783e3d2a3b37161411161d2b0d0808170a0c381e1d0a1b561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dc9a998e9f93b2b0b5b2b98fa9acacb3aea89cbab9aebff2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll 
free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 4, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5586 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,146,080
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       8,336
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,154,416
<CASH>                                           8,146
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              29,875
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         146,233
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,537,742
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 72,079
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            511,196
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 30,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        700
<COMMON>                                       695,441
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,537,742
<PREMIUMS>                                      90,448
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             65,064
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               3,189
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     297
<BENEFITS>                                       6,874
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     23,829
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            22,732
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                105,563
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,538
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             78,025
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    78,025
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.52
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 111,759
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                              9,123
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                48,803
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 72,079
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0



</TABLE>
### §1536. Prohibition against fraudulent use of "Made in America" labels

If it has been finally determined by a court or a Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing a "Made in America" inscription, or an inscription with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not made in the United States, that person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or subcontract from the Department of Commerce, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility procedures in subpart 9.4 of chapter 1 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

(Pub. L. 102–245, title I, §111(b), Feb. 14, 1992, 106 Stat. 14.)
1

Mears, Gilbert

From: Greene County Watershed Alliance <greenewatersheds@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 5:05 PM

To: Mears, Gilbert

Subject: Docket EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Mr. Mears 

Re: Docket # - EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281 

Close the TRI loophole for the oil and gas industry, citizens deserve to 

know the toxic releases they're exposed to. End the TRI exemption. 

-- 

Terri Davin 

Greene County Watershed Alliance 

PO Box 1002 

Waynesburg, PA 15370 

724-852-1210 

GCWA 

6 South Morgan Street 

Waynesburg, PA 15370 

www.greenewatersheds.org

Visit us on fb 

www.facebook.com/greenewatersheds

 

 

 

 

This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain 

legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are 

hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly 

prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please (1) notify me by replying to this message; (2) 

permanently delete the original and any electronic copies of this e-mail and any attachments; and (3) destroy any hard 

copies of the same. Thank you
# C_2007129EN.01001402.xml

| 9.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/14

---

Action brought on 25 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-216/07)

(2007/C 129/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and W. Bogensberger, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

1

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which Directive 2003/110/EC had to be transposed expired on 5 December 2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26.

1

---
#### Samuel R. Smith v. Frank E. Anderson.

Motion to open default granted on payment of ten dollars costs. Settle order on notice.
# C_2010301EN.01003103.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/31

---

Action brought on 10 August 2010 — Viaguara v OHIM — Pfizer (VIAGUARA)

(Case T-332/10)

()

2010/C 301/54

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Viaguara S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, legal adviser)

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: Pfizer Inc.

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul in its entirety the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2010 in Case R 964/2009-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in its entirety the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2010 in Case R 964/2009-1;

| — | order the defendant and Pfizer Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and Pfizer Inc. to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Viaguara.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘VIAGUARA’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — application No 4630562.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pfizer Inc.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community work mark ‘VIAGRA’ for goods in Class 5.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and trade mark application rejected in its entirety.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) on account of an incorrect methodology for assessment of the connection between the marks and flawed findings in relation to the risk of exploitation of the repute and image of the trade mark cited in opposition.

Pleas in law:

1

---

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

1

---
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. FRANK HARDINA & MICHAEL HARDINA, Defendants

Criminal No. 82F-76

Superior Court of Guam

October 28, 1976

ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

In denying Defendant’s 5 October, 1976, Motion to Dismiss for prosecution’s non-compliance with a discovery order and order for production of grand jury testimony, this Court cites the Decision in the companion case *People of the Territory of Guam v. Michael Imamura,*104F-76.

Submit order.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Acomparison of methods to predict historical daily streamflow time series in thesoutheastern United States**
 
Report
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix C Figures
Tables 1-7
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.42/4-4:2014-5231
Item Number:0624-B-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000945095
 
June 26, 2018
§ 1317.505 Employment criteria. A recipient shall not administer or operate any test or other criterion for any employment opportunity that has a disproportionately adverse effect on persons on the basis of sex unless: ( a ) Use of such test or other criterion is shown to predict validly successful performance in the position in question; and
( b ) Alternative tests or criteria for such purpose, which do not have such disproportionately adverse effect, are shown to be unavailable.
# C_2012250EN.01001301.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2012 — Jackson International v OHIM — Royal Shakespeare (ROYAL SHAKESPEARE)

(Case T-60/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ROYAL SHAKESPEARE - Earlier Community word mark RSC-ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY - Relative grounds for invalidity - Mark with a reputation - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of association - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)

2012/C 250/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jackson International Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: H.-G. Zeiner and S. Di Natale, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: The Royal Shakespeare Company (Warwickshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Barnett, Solicitor, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2009 (Case R 317/2009-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between The Royal Shakespeare Company and Jackson International Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jackson International Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jackson International Trading Co. Kurt D. Brühl GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1



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 Alliance Laundry Systems LLC,
Alliance Laundry Corporation and Alliance Laundry Holdings LLC (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas F.
LEsperance, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Companies.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ THOMAS F. LESPERANCE            
|Chief Executive Officer and President



August 10, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5760]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Payette National Forest, Idaho, Golden Hand <greek-i>3 and 
<greek-i>4 Lode Mining Claims, Plan of Operations

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service is withdrawing the Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for The Golden Hand No. 3 and No. 4 Lode Mining 
Claims Proposed Plan of Operations. The project included mining 
operations on the lode claims along with associated activities such as 
road maintenance and construction. The project will not be implemented. 
Any further action on claims No. 3 and No. 4 would be conducted under a 
new plan of operation and subsequent environmental documentation.

DATES: The Notice of Intent originally appeared on April 19, 2002 in 
the Federal Register page no 19389. The Notice of Availability of the 
Final EIS appeared on May 9, 2003 in the Federal Register page no 
25023. This withdrawal of the Notice of Intent is effective on the date 
of this publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Jeff Hunteman, Krassel Ranger 
District, Payette National Forest, 500 N. Mission, McCall, Idaho 83638.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunteman at the above address, or 
e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f993918c978d9c949897b99f8ad79f9c9dd78c8a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c262439223829212d220c2a3f622a292862393f">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mining claims are located in the Frank 
Church-River of No Return Wilderness, approximately 50 miles northeast 
of McCall, Idaho in section 26, T22N, R9E, Boise Meridian. The claims 
encompass approximately 20 acres each adjacent to Coin Creek, a 
tributary of Beaver Creek, which flows into Big Creek, a tributary of 
the Salmon River. The Record of Decision will also be withdrawn.

Responsible Official

    The responsible official is the Forest Supervisor of the Payette 
National Forest.

    Dated: March 7, 2011.
Suzanne C. Rainville,
Forest Supervisor, Payette National Forest.
[FR Doc. 2011-5760 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 30, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 30, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17I0250. RELIABLE RESTORATION, LLC v. VIKKI COHEN et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2015CV255816
Abatement Order filed December 4, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00832-CR

____________

BRETT DAVID BOGUS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1433472

ABATEMENT ORDER

The reporter’s record has not been filed in this appeal. The court reporter has 

informed the court that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the 

reporter’s fee to prepare the reporter’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(A). 

This court is unaware whether appellant is entitled to proceed without the payment 

of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, we enter the following 

order. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c).
We ORDER the judge of the 176th District Court to immediately conduct a 

hearing at which appellant, appellant’s counsel, if any, and counsel for the State 

shall participate, either in person or by video teleconference, to determine whether 

appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent 

and, thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. The judge may 

appoint appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The judge shall see that a 

record of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusions. The transcribed record of 

the hearing, the court’s findings and conclusions, and a videotape or compact disc, 

if any, containing a recording of the video teleconference shall be filed with the 

clerk of this court within thirty days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or 

the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any 

party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to 

schedule a hearing in compliance with this court’s order. If the parties do not 

request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date 

and notify the parties of such date.

PER CURIAM