alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13414-13415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5623]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Evaluation of the Impact of Work or School 
Exclusion Criteria on the Spread of Influenza and Influenza-Like-
Illness (U01), Funding Opportunity Number (FOA) CK11-007, Initial 
Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

    Time and Date: 8 a.m.-5 p.m., May 2, 2011 (Closed).
    Place: Sheraton Gateway Hotel Atlanta Airport, 1900 Sullivan 
Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30337, Telephone: (770) 997-1100.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the initial 
review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in 
response to ``Evaluation of the Impact of Work or School Exclusion 
Criteria on the Spread of Influenza and Influenza-like-Illness 
(U01), FOA CK11-007.''
    Contact Person for More Information: Dr. Amy Yang, Scientific 
Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E60,

[[Page 13415]]

Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 498-2733.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: March 7, 2011.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2011-5623 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
### **CHAPTER 68—LAND REMOTE-SENSING COMMERCIALIZATION**
# C_2010234EN.01004801.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/48

---

Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (BMICONTROL)

(Case T-283/10)

()

2010/C 234/85

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, 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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2010 in case R 1435/2009-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2010 in case R 1435/2009-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BMICONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.

Pleas in law:

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Maxine Adams and Cecil Adams v. Rebecca Ross

Appellate case number: 01-11-00552-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-12207

Trial court: 269th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: August 19, 2013

Party filing motion: Appellants

It is ordered that all relief requested in appellants’ “Motion for Reconsideration for Order 

of Dimissal [sic] and Judgement [sic] for Costs Motion [sic] for New Trial on All Issues on 

AppealMotion [sic] to Vacate Void Judgment and Motion for a New Trial” is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle

Date: August 28, 2013
### §64. Unfair methods of competition in export trade

The prohibition against "unfair methods of competition" and the remedies provided for enforcing said prohibition contained in the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.] shall be construed as extending to unfair methods of competition used in export trade against competitors engaged in export trade, even though the acts constituting such unfair methods are done without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

(Apr. 10, 1918, ch. 50, §4, 40 Stat. 517.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to in text, is act Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§41 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 58 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

"Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.]" substituted in text for "Act entitled 'An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes,' approved September twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and fourteen" on authority of section 18 of that Act [15 U.S.C. 58].
# C_2010100EN.01004801.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/48

---

Action brought on 1 February 2010 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

(Case T-36/10)

2010/C 100/73

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decisions of 9 October 2009 and 1 December 2009 in so far as the applicant is thereby refused access to the documents which have not been released; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decisions of 9 October 2009 and 1 December 2009 in so far as the applicant is thereby refused access to the documents which have not been released;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant objects to the Commission’s decision of 9 October 2009 by which its application for access to the undisclosed documents on the file concerning the LIEN 97-2011 contract was refused in part, and to the Commission’s letter of 1 December 2009 informing the applicant that a decision on the applicant’s second application for access to the file of the LIEN 97-2011 contract could not be taken within the period prescribed.

In support of its application the applicant submits, in essence, that the Commission was not entitled to deny the applicant access to the documents applied for on the basis of the exceptions laid down under Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The applicant further submits in that regard that there is an overriding public interest in the release of the documents which have not yet been made available.

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

1

---
§ 51.22 Payment to owners for goats, sheep, and horses destroyed. ( a ) The Administrator may authorize the payment of Federal indemnity by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to any owner whose goats, sheep, or horses are destroyed after having been approved for destruction by APHIS.[1] Goats or sheep must be destroyed as part of a whole herd/flock depopulation to be eligible for Federal indemnity.
( b ) The amount of Federal indemnity will be determined in accordance with the regulations in this part that were in effect on the date infected animals were found, or the date that the whole-herd/flock depopulation or destruction of individual animals was approved.
( c ) Prior to payment of indemnity, proof of destruction must be furnished to the Veterinarian in Charge.
Footnotes -
51.22
[1] The Administrator will authorize payment of Federal indemnity by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as provided in § 51.24: (a) As long as sufficient funds appropriated by Congress appear to be available for this purpose for the remainder of the fiscal year; (b) in States or areas not under Federal quarantine; (c) in States requesting payment of Federal indemnity; and (d) in States not requesting a lower rate.
#### § 5.5 Travel, transportation, and subsistence.

The provisions of chapter 57 of title 5, U.S. Code and the implementing regulations for the Executive Branch apply to Government Accountability Office employees.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5500]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service


Announcement of Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels; 
Correction

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Solicitation of Applications; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural 
Utilities Service (RUS) published a document in the Federal Register of 
March 4, 2011, announcing the availability of $25 million in funding 
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 for the Community Connect Grant Program. The 
document contained an incorrect website.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas P. Dickson, 202-690-4492.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 4, 2011, in FR Doc. 76-12017, on 
page 12022, in the first column, under the heading ``Agency Contacts'' 
correct the Web site to read:

    A. Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/utp_commconnect.html.

    Dated: March 3, 2011.
Jonathan Adelstein,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-5500 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
### §19a. Repealed. Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, §329, 49 Stat. 717

Section, act Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, §8a, as added June 16, 1933, ch. 89, §33, 48 Stat. 194, related to interlocking corporations or partnerships making loans on securities.
§ 157.204 Application procedure. ( a ) *Who may apply.* Any interstate pipeline which has been issued a certificate other than a limited-jurisdiction certificate, pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and had rates accepted by the Commission may apply for a blanket certificate under this subpart in the manner prescribed in §§ 157.6(a), 157.14(a) and 385.2011 of this chapter.
( b ) *Hearing procedure.* Upon receiving an application for a blanket certificate under this subpart, the Commission will conduct a hearing pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and §§ 1.32 and 157.11 of this chapter.
( c ) *Issuance.* If required by the present or future public convenience and necessity, the Commission will issue a blanket certificate to the applicant.
( d ) *Application contents.* Applications for blanket certificates shall contain: ( 1 ) Information indicating the exact legal name of the applicant; its principal place of business; whether the applicant is an individual, partnership, corporation or otherwise; citation to the certificate proceeding in which the applicant was found to be a natural gas company; the state under the laws of which the applicant is organized or authorized to do business; and the name, title, and mailing address and telephone number of the person or persons to whom communications concerning the application are to be addressed;
( 2 ) A statement that the applicant will comply with the terms, conditions and procedures specified in this subpart.
[Order 234, 47 FR 24266, June 4, 1982, as amended by Order 319, 48 FR 34888, Aug. 1, 1983; Order 433, 50 FR 40345, Oct. 3, 1985; Order 436, 50 FR 42490, Oct. 18, 1985; Order 493, 53 FR 15030, Apr. 27, 1988; Order 603, 64 FR 26607, May 14, 1999]
# C_2012366EN.01002101.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/21

---

Order of the Court of 15 June 2012 — Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company v European Commission

(Case C-494/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators - Fines - Parent company and subsidiaries - Imputability of the unlawful conduct)

2012/C 366/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, formerly General Technic-Otis Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, Otis BV, Otis Elevator (represented by: A. Winckler and D. Gerard, lawyers, and by J. Temple Lang and C. Cook, Solicitors)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, R. Sauer and J. Bourke, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Joined Cases T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 and T-146/07 General Technic-Otis and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E 1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel in the market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, concerning bid-rigging, market-sharing, price-fixing, the awarding of projects and contracts related thereto and exchange of information, and, in the alternative, for the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant — Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries

General Technic-Otis and Others

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, Otis BV and Otis Elevator Company shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Otis Luxembourg Sàrl, Otis SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, Otis BV and Otis Elevator Company shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

1

---
#### § 53.7 Disinfection of premises, conveyances, and materials.

All premises, including barns, corrals, stockyards and pens, and all cars, vessels, aircraft, and other conveyances, and the materials thereon, shall be cleaned and disinfected under supervision of an APHIS employee whenever necessary for the control and eradication of disease. Expenses incurred in connection with such cleaning and disinfection shall be shared according to the agreement reached under § 53.2 with the State in which the work is done. In the case of low pathogenic avian influenza related to the 2002 disease situations in Virginia and Texas associated with the H5 or H7 virus, premises may not be restocked with poultry until at least 7 days following such cleaning and disinfection, unless the Administrator determines that a shorter or longer period of time is adequate or necessary to protect new poultry against infection.

[68 FR 42569, July 18, 2003]
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 on Form 10-QSB of Inverted Paradigms Corporation (the Company), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stewart York, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do
hereby certify, to my knowledge that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|                                                  
|/s/    STEWART
YORK                               
|Stewart York President and Chief Executive Officer



Dated: February 8, 2007



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Inverted Paradigms Corporation and will be retained by Inverted Paradigms Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Cambridge Heart, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, David A. Chazanovitz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|Dated: April 29, 2003 |  | /s/DAVID A. CHAZANOVITZDavid A. Chazanovitz
Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---
EXHIBIT 32.2
 Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the
quarter ended June 30,2010 filed on the date
hereof with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ PAUL M. PARRISHPaul  M. ParrishChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 21

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF WKI HOLDING COMPANY, INC.


Name of Subsidiary                      Jurisdiction of Incorporation/Organization
<S>                                     <C>
CCPC FSC, Inc.                               Barbados
EKCO Group, LLC                              Delaware
EKCO Housewares, Inc.                        Delaware
EKCO Manufacturing of Ohio, Inc.             Delaware
Mundial do Brasil Ltda.                      Brazil
WKI Latin America Holding, LLC               Delaware
WKM, S. de. R.L. de. C.V.                    Mexico
World Kitchen (Asia Pacific) Pte. Ltd.       Singapore
World Kitchen (Asia Pacific) SDN BDH         Singapore
World Kitchen ATG (M) SDN BDH                Malaysian
World Kitchen (Australia) Pty. Ltd.          Australia
World Kitchen Canada, Inc.                   Canada
World Kitchen Canada (EHI), Inc.             Canada
World Kitchen (GHC), LLC                     Delaware
World Kitchen, Inc.                          Delaware
World Kitchen (Korea) Co. Ltd.               Republic of Korea
World Kitchen Mexico S. de R.L. de CV        Mexico
World Kitchen (UK) Limited                   United Kingdom
</TABLE>
# C_2013123EN.01000301.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH v Finanzamt Bayreuth

(Case C-275/11) (1)

1

(Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemption of the management of special investment funds - Scope)

2013/C 123/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GfBk Gesellschaft für Börsenkommunikation mbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Bayreuth

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of the management of special investment funds — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that advisory services concerning investment in transferable securities, provided by a third party to an investment management company which is the manager of a special investment fund, fall within the concept of ‘management of special investment funds’ for the purposes of the exemption laid down in that provision, even if the third party has not acted on the basis of a mandate within the meaning of Article 5g of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) as amended by Directive 2001/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 January 2002.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

1

---
#### Mary Vizzacco *vs.*Priscilla Worsted Mills.

FEBRUARY 27, 1952.

Present: Flynn, C.J., Capotosto, Baker, Condon and O’Connell, JJ.

Condon, J.

This petition for certiorari was allowed to be filed on the ground that there was doubt whether petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal to this court to review a certain decree of the superior court dismissing her claim of appeal in a workmen’s compensation case. After the writ *223issued and the record in the case was certified here, petitioner perfected an appeal from the decree complained of, which appeal was sustained by our opinion filed this day. *Priscilla Worsted Mills*v. *Vizzacco,*79 R. I. 217. Therefore it is unnecessary to further consider the instant petition.

*Luigi Capasso,*for petitioner.

*Boss & Conlan, John T. Keenan,*for respondent.

For the above reason only, the petition is denied and dismissed, the writ heretofore issued is quashed, and the record certified thereunder is ordered sent back to the superior court with our decision endorsed thereon.