alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 113–249—DEC. 18, 2014 128 STAT. 2885 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3096: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–235 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 159 (2013): Sept. 27, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 160 (2014): Dec. 11, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–249 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the building occupied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation located 

at 801 Follin Lane, Vienna, Virginia, as the ‘‘Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The building occupied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

located at 801 Follin Lane, Vienna, Virginia, shall be known and 

designated as the ‘‘Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center’’ 

during the period in which the building is occupied by the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

During the period in which the building referred to in section 

1 is occupied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, any reference 

in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of 

the United States to that building shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center’’. 

Approved December 18, 2014. 

Dec. 18, 2014 

[H.R. 3096] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
# C_2011080EN.01001902.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/19

---

Action brought on 27 December 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Technisynthese (BTS)

(Case T-592/10)

2011/C 80/37

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. E. López Camba and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Technisynthese SARL (Saint Pierre Montlimart, France)

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 23 September 2010 in Case R 1380/2009-1 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in Case R 1380/2009-1 in its entirety;

| — | order the defendant and any interveners to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and any interveners to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: El Corte Inglés, SA.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BTS’ for goods in Classes 14, 18, 25 and 28.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Technisynthese SARL.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘TBS’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Failure to demonstrate that the earlier marks have a reputation and have been put to use, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the 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

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") of Farnsworth Bancorp,  Inc. (the "Company")
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission,  we, Gary N.  Pelehaty,
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Charles Alessi, Vice President, Chief
Financial  Officer,  Treasurer  and  Secretary,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


<S>                                     <C>
/s/ Gary N. Pelehaty                        /s/ Charles Alessi
-------------------------------------       -------------------------------------------
Gary N. Pelehaty                            Charles Alessi
President and Chief Executive Officer       Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
                                            Treasurer and Secretary
                                            (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


</TABLE>

April 30, 2003
### §3208. Relationship to other applicable law

Nothing in this chapter prohibits any State regulatory authority or nonregulated gas utility from adopting, pursuant to State law, any standard or rule affecting gas utilities which is different from any standard established by this chapter.

(Pub. L. 95–617, title III, §308, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3153.)

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

#### Definitions

The definition of State in section 2602 of Title 16, Conservation, applies to this section.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 24, 2014

h1021 

# Order

Clerk October 24, 2014

148777

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148777

COA: 319602

Jackson CC: 12

- 004221

- FC

BRIAN NORBERT OTTO,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered a nd, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration as on leave granted. The Court of Appeals shall specifically address

whether the Jackson Circuit Court had the authority to sentence the defendant to a

minimum term of less than 25 years. See MCL 750.520b(2)(b); MCL 769.34(2)(a).
### §637a. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–409, §3(b), May 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 133

Section, Pub. L. 87–550, §2, July 25, 1962, 76 Stat. 221, authorized the Administration to make loans to assist in adjusting to competition from imports, described such authority as additional to that under the Small Business Act, provided for application of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, authorized appropriations, and provided for an effective date. See section 636(e) of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on July 1, 1966, see section 3(c) of Pub. L. 89–409, set out as a note under section 636 of this title.
§ 270.503 Protests to the Commission. ( a ) *Who may file.* Any person may file a protest with the Commission with respect to a determination of a jurisdictional agency within 20 days after the date that notice of receipt of a determination is issued by the Commission pursuant to § 270.204.
( b ) *Grounds.* Protests may be based only on the grounds the final determination is: ( 1 ) Not supported by substantial evidence;
( 2 ) Not consistent with information which is contained in the public records of the Commission and which was not part of the record on which the determination was made;
( 3 ) Not consistent with information submitted with the protests for inclusion in the public records of the Commission, which information was not part of the record on which the determination was made; or
( 4 ) Not based on an application which complied with the filing requirements set forth in this part.
### §4726. Indian tribes export promotion

#### (a) Assistance authorized

The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to provide assistance to eligible entities for the development of foreign markets for authentic American Indian arts and crafts. Eligible entities under this section include Indian tribes, tribal organizations, tribal enterprises, craft guilds, marketing cooperatives, and individual Indian-owned businesses.

#### (b) Activities eligible for assistance

Activities eligible for assistance under this section include, but are not limited to, conduct of market surveys, development of promotional materials, financing of trade missions, participation in international trade fairs, direct marketing, and other market development activities.

#### (c) Administration of assistance

Assistance under this section shall be administered by the Secretary of Commerce under guidelines developed by the Secretary. Priority shall be given to projects which support the establishment of long term, stable international markets for American Indian arts and crafts and which are designed to provide the greatest economic benefit to American Indian artisans.

#### (d) Technical and other assistance

The Secretary of Commerce shall provide technical assistance and support services to applicants eligible for and entities receiving assistance under this section for the purpose of helping them in identifying and entering appropriate foreign markets, complying with foreign and domestic legal and banking requirements regarding the export and import of arts and crafts, and utilizing import and export financial arrangements, and shall provide such other assistance as may be necessary to support the development of export markets for American Indian arts and crafts.

#### (e) Limitation on assistance

No assistance shall be provided under this section in support of any activity which includes the sale or marketing of any craft items other than authentic arts and crafts hand made or hand crafted by American Indian artisans.

(Pub. L. 100–418, title II, §2307, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1345.)
# C_2013344EN.01001601.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Pactor Vastgoed BV

(Case C-622/11) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 13C and 20 - Supply of immovable property - Right to opt for taxation - Right to deduction - Adjustment of deductions - Recovery of sums due following adjustment of a VAT deduction - Taxable person liable for payment - Taxable person other than the person who initially applied the deduction and who is extraneous to the taxed transaction which gave rise to the deduction)

2013/C 344/25

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Applicant:

Defendant: Pactor Vastgoed BV

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 20 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) — Deduction of input tax — Adjustment of deductions previously made — Supply of a property by a supplier to a real estate company — Supply dealt with by the parties, although not by the applicable legislation, as a taxable transaction

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as precluding the recovery of amounts due following the adjustment of a value added tax deduction from a taxable person other than the person who applied that deduction.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5803]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9279-9]


Notice of Meeting of the EPA's Children's Health Protection 
Advisory Committee (CHPAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of 
the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be 
held March 30 and 31 at the Arlington Court Suites Hotel, 1200 North 
Courthouse Road, Arlington, VA. The CHPAC was created to advise the 
Environmental Protection Agency on science, regulations, and other 
issues relating to children's environmental health.

DATES: The CHPAC will meet March 30 and 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Arlington Court Suites Hotel, 1200 North Courthouse Road, 
Arlington, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Berger, Office of Children's 
Health Protection, USEPA, MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-2191, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dab8bfa8bdbfa8f4b7bba8aeb2bb9abfaabbf4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cba9aeb9acaeb9e5a6aab9bfa3aa8baebbaae5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the 
public. Preliminary agenda includes discussion of advice letters on 
chemical prioritization and on asthma disparities, sustainability and 
children's health, guidelines to states for school environmental health 
programs, and the Design for the Environment program.
    The final agenda will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/children.
    Access: For information on access or services for individuals with 
disabilities, please contact Martha Berger at 202-564-2191 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#06646374616374286b6774726e674663766728616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0d2d5c2d7d5c29eddd1c2c4d8d1f0d5c0d19ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 3, 2011.
Martha Berger,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 2011-5803 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 390.6 Fee schedule.

Department regulations provide for a schedule of reasonable standard charges for document search and duplication. See 7 CFR 1.17. Fees to be charged are in 7 CFR part 1, subpart A, appendix A.
§ 93.203 Ports designated for the importation of poultry. ( a ) *Air and ocean ports.* The following ports have APHIS inspection and quarantine facilities necessary for quarantine stations and all poultry shall be entered into the United States through these stations, except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this section: Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; and Newburgh, New York.
( b ) *Canadian border ports.* The following land border ports are designated as having the necessary inspection facilities for the entry of poultry from Canada: Eastport, Idaho; Houlton and Jackman, Maine; Detroit, Port Huron, and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan; Baudette, Minnesota; Opheim, Raymond, and Sweetgrass, Montana; Alexandria Bay, Buffalo, and Champlain, New York; Dunseith, Pembina, and Portal, North Dakota; Derby Line and Highgate Springs, Vermont; Oroville and Sumas, Washington.
( c ) *Mexican border ports.* The following land border ports are designated as having the necessary inspection facilities for the entry of poultry from Mexico: Brownsville, Hidalgo, Laredo, Eagle Pass, Del Rio, Presidio, and El Paso, Texas; Douglas, Naco, Nogales, Sasabe, and San Luis, Arizona; Calexico and San Ysidro, California; and Antelope Wells, and Columbus, New Mexico.
( d ) *Limited ports.* The following ports are designated as having inspection facilities for the entry of poultry and poultry products such as poultry test specimens, or hatching eggs and day old chicks which do not appear to require restraint and holding inspection facilities: Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska; San Diego, California; Jacksonville, Port Canaveral, St. Petersburg-Clearwater, and Tampa, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; Honolulu, Hawaii; Chicago, Illinois; New Orleans, Louisiana; Portland, Maine; Baltimore, Maryland; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Great Falls, Montana; Portland, Oregon; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Galveston and Houston, Texas; and Seattle, Spokane, and Tacoma, Washington.
( e ) *Designation of other ports.* The Secretary of the Treasury has approved the designation as quarantine stations of the ports specified in this section. In special cases other ports may be designated as quarantine stations under this section by the Administrator, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury.
[55 FR 31495, Aug. 2, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 37642, July 13, 1993; 60 FR 16045, Mar. 29, 1995; 60 FR 25120, May 11, 1995. Redesignated at 56012, Oct. 28, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 38178, June 20, 2000; 67 FR 6370, Feb. 12, 2002; 67 FR 68022, Nov. 8, 2002]
(No. 32195.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, *vs.*Lawrence O’Connell, Plaintiff in Error.

*Opinion filed March 20, 1952.*

*592Lawrence O’Connell, *pro se.*

Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and John S. Boyle, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega, Arthur E. Manning, and William J. McGah, Jr., all of Chicago, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. Chief Justice Daily

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff in error, Lawrence O’Connell, was tried before a jury in the criminal court of Cook County for robbery while armed. He was found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of his natural life. Appearing in this court *pro se*and presenting only the common-law record, he prosecutes this writ of error contending: (1) that improper evidence was allowed to come before the jury; (2) that he was deprived of the presumption of innocence which is afforded one being tried for a crime; (3) that the evidence did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) that his conviction was the result of passion and prejudice induced by improper cross-examination and argument on the part of the prosecutor.

The contentions made by plaintiff in error are all such as find no basis in the common-law record but must be established by a bill of exceptions. Rule 70A of this court (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, chap, no, par. 259.70A,) requires that the correctness of the bill of exceptions or stenographic report be certified by the trial judge. There is no properly certified bill of exceptions presented in this court but in lieu thereof plaintiff in error has appended to the record a partial stenographic transcript of the proceedings at his trial, which has been sworn to by the court reporter. The *593report of proceedings as presented is neither complete nor properly certified and affords no proper basis for this court to ascertain whether the conviction was justified or whether it was subject to the legal errors plaintiff in error assigns. Since it is a nullity, there remains nothing for us to review, for the presumption obtains, in the absence of a proper bill of exceptions, that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the verdict and the judgment rendered thereon. *People*v. *Geddes,*396 Ill. 522; *People*v. *Johns,*388 Ill. 212; *People*v. *Bertrand,*385 Ill. 289.

The judgment of the criminal court is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Richard A. Karp, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Catapult Communications Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation;  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date: August 8, 2005       /s/ Richard A. Karp     (Richard A. Karp)