alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2013 Cellulosic Biofuel Standard Call Log

All calls listed discussed the current status of technology development for the production of 

cellulosic biofuel, status and projected completion date of the construction of cellulosic biofuel 

facilities (if applicable), and expected production volumes, ramp-up targets, and other production 

milestones. Much of the information discussed is considered CBI.

Date Company Participant(s)

1/5/2012 DuPont Jennifer Hutchins

1/5/2012 CORE Biofuels Doug Sheppard

1/9/2012 American Process Inc. Kim Nelson

1/9/2012 Abengoa Chris Standlee

1/10/2012 Covanta Chris Weber

1/10/2012 Poet Jim Sturdevant

1/10/2012 KiOR Andre Ditsch

1/10/2012 Enerkem Marie-Helene Labrie

1/10/2012 Renmatix (Sirya) Tim Brown

1/11/2012 Coskata Loula Merkel

1/11/2012 Terrabon Gary Gaverick

1/13/2012 Sundrop Fuels Steve Silvers

1/13/2012 BP Ruth Scotti

1/24/2012 Fulcrum Ted Kniesche

2/6/2012 Abengoa Chris Standlee

2/13/2012 ZeaChem Carrie Atiyeh

2/13/2012 Poet Jim Sturdevant, Nathan Schock

2/14/2012 Fiberight Craig Stuart-Paul

2/15/2012 KL Energy (Blue Sugars) Ryan Zebroski

2/15/2012 INEOS Bio Dan Cummings, Mark Niederschulte, Kelly Russell

2/16/2012 KiOR John Kasbaum, Andre Ditsch, Marty Fuller

4/17/2012 Coskata Loula Merkel

4/20/2012 Rentech Bob Freerks

6/20/2012 American Process Inc Kim Nelson

6/20/2012 INEOS Bio Kelly Russell

6/25/2012 KiOR John Kasbaum

6/28/2012 Thor Renewables Bill Cox

6/29/2012 ZeaChem Carrie Atiyeh

7/27/2012 INEOS Bio Dan Cummings

8/6/2012 Solena Steve Miller

8/14/2012 KiOR Quarterly Update

9/12/2012 Fiberight Craig Stuart-Paul

9/18/2012 INEOS Bio Dan Cummings

9/19/2012 EIA Bill Brown, Mac Statton

9/21/2012 Abengoa Gerson Santos, Chris Standlee

9/21/2012 KiOR John Kasbaum

9/27/2012 American Process Inc Kim Nelson
9/27/2012 Poet Larry Ward

11/30/12 Old Town Fuel + Fiber James St. Pierre

12/10/2012 KiOR John Kasbaum

12/10/2012 INEOS Bio Dan Cummings, Kelly Russell

12/13/2012 ZeaChem Carrie Atiyeh

1/10/2013 EIA Mac Statton, John Maples, Mindi Farber-DeAnda, 

Mike Cole

1/23/2013 Ensyn Bob Graham, Bob Pirraglia, Judson Grief, Amy 

Chiang

2/20/2013 Cool Planet Biofuels Mike Rocke

2/20/2013 Nature’s Fuel Bill Sinish

2/22/2013 Virent Aaron Emry

2/22/2013 Lanza Tech Carl Wolf

2/22/2013 INEOS Bio Dan Cummings

2/22/2013 Fiberight Craig Stuart-Paul

2/25/2013 Covanta Steve Weber

2/26/2013 Biotechnology Industry 

Organization

Chris Standlee, Doug Berven, Stephan Tanda, Pat 

Gruber, Matt Carr, Erick Lutt

2/27/2013 EIA Mac Statton

2/28/2013 Abengoa Chris Standlee

3/4/2013 Poet Larry Ward

3/7/2013 KiOR John Kasbaum

3/18/2013 KiOR Quarterly Update

3/18/2013 Fiberight Craig Stuart-Paul

3/21/2013 EIA Mac Statton, Mindi Farber-DeAnda

3/22/2013 DuPont Michael Parr, Steven Mirshak

4/4/2013 INEOS Bio Dan Cummings

4/4/2013 American Process Inc Kim Nelson

4/9/2013 DOE (BETO) Chris Ramig, Brian Duff, Ross Miscel, Glen Doyne, 

Brenda Bernsen, Gene Peterson

4/30/2013 KiOR John Kasbaum

5/9/2013 KiOR Quarterly Update

5/28/2013 INEOS Bio Dan Cummings, Kelly Russell

6/17/2013 KiOR John Kasbaum
samhsa.gov/prevention-week 

TIPS FOR WRITING A 

NATIONAL PREVENTION WEEK 

PROCLAMATION 

Getting Started 

Before creating a proclamation about National 

Prevention Week, contact local officials who may be 

interested in supporting this effort. It’s best to email 

the official or his/her communications office two to 

three months prior to the observance and follow up 

with a phone call, if necessary. Explain the purpose of 

National Prevention Week, highlight the local events or 

activities that you would like to share, and emphasize 

the importance of governmental and public support for 

this observance. Once you receive word that the official 

will support your efforts and issue a proclamation, it’s 

time to start writing. 

Developing the Proclamation 

While there are different styles of writing a 

proclamation, one approach is to write the document 

in a letter format (see examples of Presidential 

proclamations). For your National Prevention Week 

proclamation, be sure to insert local information or 

statistics that will resonate with your community. When 

you have finalized the proclamation and received any 

required approvals within your organization, submit the 

proclamation to your local official’s office and allow time 

for the official to review and sign the document. Follow 

up to check the status of the proclamation until you 

receive the signed copy. 

Publicize 

Once you have the signed proclamation, publicize 

it! Visit local businesses, health clubs, libraries, 

schools, college campuses, addiction and mental 

health treatment centers, and government buildings 

to see if they will allow you to display copies of your 

proclamation. You can also arrange a press conference 

or town hall meeting and have your local official sign 

the proclamation there as an additional publicity 

option. The event can be accompanied by a roundtable 

discussion on issues related to substance use 

prevention and the promotion of mental health. Finally, 

you can have your proclamation featured in a local 

publication to increase awareness. Distribute electronic 

copies of the document to the “local” or “metro” 

desk of your community’s newspapers, along with a 

press release to announce the signing of the National 

Prevention Week proclamation. 

Issuing a proclamation on behalf of your city, county, town, state, or tribal community is a 

way to raise public awareness of National Prevention Week. A proclamation is an official 

announcement that publicly recognizes an initiative or observance. Proclamations are typically 

signed and issued by federal officials, governors, state legislators, mayors, or other government 

officials at the local level. Issuing a proclamation designating the second week in May as 

National Prevention Week can help draw attention to prevention issues and the events and 

activities held in your region in honor of this health observance.
#### Phillips Lumber Company *v.*Bush.

April 15, 1910.

Action for damages. Before Judge Worrill. Miller superior court.

August 9, 1909.

*William I. Geer,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. B. Pottle*and *R. W. Grow,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. While the judge said to the jury, “If you believe that the defendant violated the lease contract, and cut and carried away any timber that it had no right to cut and carry away under the terms of the lease contract, and you believe that the plaintiff [naming him] is entitled to recover damages, then the court gives you this rule of law by which damages are measured,” yet where the context of this charge clearly showed that the jury were instructed that they must he satisfied from the evidence both as to the right of recovery and the extent of it, the omission to add to the words “if you believe,” in the charge quoted, the words “from the evidence” furnished no ground for a new trial.

2. There was no merit in any of the other grounds of the motion for a new trial. The charges complained of were not subject to the grounds of objection urged against them.

3. This was the second verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and from an examination of the evidence it can not he said that it was not sufficient to withstand a motion for a nonsuit or to sustain the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Eugenia Dumbadze, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospital Corporation, Defendant. Parker & Waichman, LLP, Nonparty Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 699]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated March 15, 2005, which granted the motion of Parker & Waichman, LLR for leave to withdraw as her counsel.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*628Based on the record, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion of Parker & Waichman, LLP, for leave to withdraw as the plaintiffs counsel (see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-110 [c] [1] [iv]; [6] [22 NYCRR 1200.15 (c) (1) (iv); (6)]; *Green v Gasparini,*24 AD3d 505, 506 [2005]; *McCormack v Kamalian,*10 AD3d 679 [2004]; *Winters v Rise Steel Erection Corp.,*231 AD2d 626 [1996]; *Sansiviero v Sanders,*117 AD2d 794, 795 [1986]). Miller, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
# C_2012049EN.01001402.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/14

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — DTL Corporación, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales SL

(Case C-67/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Opposition procedure - Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Solaria’ and earlier national figurative mark containing the word element ‘Solartia’ - Registration refused in part - Likelihood of confusion - Request for a stay of the proceedings before the General Court - Failure to lodge the request in good time)

2012/C 49/23

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: DTL Corporación, SL (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluze, abogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales SL (represented by: M. Polo Carreño and M. Granado Carpenter, abogadas)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 in Case T-188/10 DTL v OHIM — Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales (Solaria) in which the General Court dismissed an action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2010 (Case R 767/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales SL and DTL Corporación SL

DTL

OHIM — Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales (Solaria)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal in so far as it concerns the services falling within Class 37 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal in so far as it concerns the services falling within Class 37 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended.

| 2. | The appeal is dismissed in so far as it concerns the services falling within Class 42 of the Nice Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The appeal is dismissed in so far as it concerns the services falling within Class 42 of the Nice Agreement.

| 3. | DTL Corporación SL shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

DTL Corporación SL shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

1

---
# C_2013079EN.01000201.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/2

---

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Jožef Grilc v Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ

(Case C-541/11) (1)

1

(Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2000/26/EC - Compensation bodies - Claim for compensation brought before a national court)

2013/C 79/02

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jožef Grilc

Applicant:

Defendant: Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Vrhovno sodišče — Interpretation of Article 6(1), first subparagraph, of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65) — Meaning of ‘claim for compensation’ and ‘responsible for providing compensation’ — Capacity of the compensation body to be a defendant in legal proceedings

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that, on the one hand, the injured party may claim compensation for the harm suffered from the compensation body in accordance with the conditions set out in that article and, on the other, that claim must necessarily first have been submitted to the compensation body, without prejudice to the injured party’s right, if necessary, subsequently to bring an action before the court having territorial jurisdiction if that claim has been rejected by that compensation body.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 November 9, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Rocco B. CommissoRocco B. CommissoChairman and
Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ Mark E. StephanMark E. StephanExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
§ 46.6 Contents of the statement and procedures for filing. Each person required to file a written statement under the general rule in § 46.4 shall comply with the following requirements: ( a ) Each person shall provide the following information: full name and business address; identification of the public utilities and the covered entities in which such person holds executive positions described in § 46.4; and identification of the interlock described in § 46.4;
( b ) If the interlock is between a public utility and an entity described in § 46.5(c), which produces or supplies electrical equipment for use of such public utility, such person shall provide the following information: ( 1 ) The aggregate amount of revenues received by such entity from producing or supplying electrical equipment to such public utility in the calendar year specified in paragraph (d) of this section, rounded up to the nearest $100,000; and
( 2 ) The nature of the business relationship between such public utility and such entity.
( c ) If the person is authorized by the Commission to hold the positions of officer or director in accordance with part 45, such person shall identify the authorization by docket number and shall give the date of authorization.
( d ) ( 1 ) Each person shall file an original and one copy of such written statement with the Office of Secretary of the Commission on or before April 30 of each year immediately following the calendar year during any portion of which such person held a position described in § 46.4. The original of such statement shall be dated and signed by such person. The copy shall bear the date that appeared on the original; the signature on the copy may be stamped or typed on the copy.
( 2 ) Instead of submitting changes to the Commission on the pre-printed Form No. 561 sent annually by the Commission, a person may choose to make changes to the pre-filled electronic version provided by the Commission. This electronic version, along with the signed original and one copy (as required by Paragraph (d)(c)) shall also be filed with the Commission.
( 3 ) Such statement shall be available to the public through the Commission's eLibrary system on *http://www.ferc.gov* and shall be made publicly available through the principal business offices of the public utility and any entity to which it applies on or before April 30 of the year the statement was filed with the Commission.
(Pub. L. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*))
[45 FR 23418, Apr. 7, 1980, as amended by Order 601, 63 FR 72169, Dec. 31, 1998; Order 737, 75 FR 43404, July 26, 2010]
# C_2012243EN.01001702.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/17

---

Order of the General Court of 28 June 2012 — Constellation Brands v OHIM (COOK’S)

(Case T-314/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark COOK’S - Failure to apply for renewal of the mark - Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration - Application for restitutio in integrum - Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 243/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Constellation Brands, Inc. (Fairport, United States of America) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1048/2009-1) in so far as it dismissed the application for restitutio in integrum

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Constellation Brands, Inc., to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Constellation Brands, Inc., to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.

1

---
# C_2010234EN.01004202.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/42

---

Action brought on 14 June 2010 — LIS v Commission

(Case T-269/10)

()

2010/C 234/77

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LIS GmbH Licht Impex Service (Mettmann, Germany) (represented by: K.-P. Langenkamp, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare the Commission decision of 12 April 2010 to be void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the Commission decision of 12 April 2010 to be void pursuant to Article 264 TFEU;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2010) 2198 final of 12 April 2010 by which the Commission rejected the applicant’s requests for reimbursement of anti-dumping duties paid in respect of the importation of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps originating in the People’s Republic of China.

In support of its claim, the applicant submits that, in applying Article 11(8) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, (1) the Commission failed to have regard for the purpose and objective of that rule and did not apply principles of logical reasoning.

1

In this regard, it is submitted, inter alia, that there was never any case of dumping in the specific case, as the production price was below the export price paid and the same product was subsequently offered by a German company at a price which was lower than the original Chinese export price.

The applicant submits, further, that the Commission disregarded the fact that the products in issue are not ordinary energy-saving light bulbs within the meaning of the measure.

The applicant also contends that the classification of the product by the German customs authorities was not, contrary to the Commission’s view, open to criticism, as there is no other classification number under which the product could have been entered.

Moreover, the Commission paid no regard to the fact that there was at no time any danger of damage within the Community in the specific case, as the light products marketed by the applicant were marketed throughout Europe by the applicant alone and there was, for that reason, no other manufacturer in need of protection.

In conclusion, it is submitted that it cannot be relevant, for purposes of entitlement to reimbursement, that the specific dumping margin has not disappeared; rather, what is decisive is that there never was any such dumping margin.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

1

---
Volunteer Facilities for EPA CC Analytical Study of FGD Wastewater

Company/Facility Company Contact Coal Type

WWT System 

Description

AEP / Mitchell Tim Lohner

(614) 716-1255

Eastern Bituminous Physical/chemical (as of 

November, will also have 

organo-sulfide treatment)

Dominion Power / 

Chesterfield

Dawn Garber

(804) 796-6350

Eastern Bituminous

Duke Energy Carolinas 

/ Belews Creek

Robert Wylie

(704) 382-4669

Eastern Bituminous Physical/chemical and 

biological treatment

Tampa Electric / Big 

Bend

Kevin Young

(813) 228-4232

Eastern Bituminous Physical/chemical

TVA / Widows Creek Lindy Johnson

(423) 751-3361

Eastern Bituminous Gypsum pond

WE Energies / 

Pleasant Prairie

Dave Lee

(414) 221-2158

PRB Physical/chemical with 

organo-sulfide treatment

29142.070321 EMF_US 28455649v2
§ 367.4180 Account 418, Non-operating rental income. ( a ) The expenses shall include all elements of costs incurred in the ownership and rental of property and the accounts shall be maintained so as to permit ready summarization of operation, maintenance, rents, depreciation, and amortization.
( b ) Related taxes shall be recorded in Account 408.2, Taxes other than income taxes, other income and deductions (§ 367.4082) or Account 409.2, Income taxes, other income and deductions (§ 367.4092), as appropriate.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of Executive Risk Inc. of our report dated February 3, 1998, included in
the 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders of Executive Risk Inc.

     Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Executive Risk
Inc. listed in Item 14. This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.


/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Stamford, Connecticut
March 25, 1998
### §78gg. Separability

If any provision of this chapter, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of the chapter and the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.

(June 6, 1934, ch. 404, title I, §33, 48 Stat. 905.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act". See References in Text note set out under section 78a of this title.