alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 19,737.

#### Mabel E. Jones *v.*Industrial Commission of Colorado, et al.

(365 P. [2d] 689)

Decided October 23, 1961.

Mr. George F. Barbary, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Mr. Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, Mr. Peter L. Dye, Assistant, for defendant in error Industrial Commission of Colorado.

Mr. Charles A. Haskell, Mr. Ralph E. Crandell, Mr. Robert J. Flynn, Mr. Harvey B. Cochran, for defendant in error O. K. Rubber Welders, Incorporated.

Mr. Harold Clark Thompson, Mr. Louis Schiff, Mr. Alious Rockett, Mr. Fred B. Dudley, for defendant in error State Compensation Insurance Fund.

*254
      *In Department.*

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Day.

The question presented by this writ of error is whether a seventy year old carpenter, of more than forty-seven years experience in his trade, who suffered a prior heart attack from which he had not fully recovered and who was shown to have died from coronary occlusion due to coronary sclerosis and to arteriosclerosis, can be said to have suffered an accidental death proximately caused by his employment.

The Industrial Commission, in its findings, stated:

> “No evidence is presented that decedent was performing other than the ordinary work of his trade. Indeed, the work as described, seems to have been lighter than the regular work of a carpenter. No evidence is presented of accidental strain or accidental overexertion which can be considered as an accidental injury.”

The record also shows that the claimant widow, Mrs. Jones, seeking death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, did not present any competent medical evidence to establish a causal connection between the work decedent was doing and the heart attack suffered while at his work and from which he died. The only evidence on the point, viewed in its most favorable light, was negative. A medical witness stated, “Who can say that what he was doing did not cause the heart attack?” He also asserted the converse to be true — that no one could say that it did.

The trial court on review sustained the findings, conclusions and final order entered by the Commission. Both the Commission and the court concluded that the widow failed to sustain the burden of establishing that the death resulted from an accident arising out of the employment. The findings of the Commission, based upon the undisputed evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, not susceptible of any other conclu*255sion than that reached by the Commission, will not be disturbed by this court on review. See *Industrial Commission v. Horner,*137 Colo. 368, 325 P. (2d) 698, and authorities cited therein.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Sutton and Mr. Justice Frantz concur.
# C_2013114EN.01003202.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Acino v Commission

(Case T-539/10) (1)

1

(Medicinal products for human use - Suspension of the placing on the market and withdrawal of medicinal products containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel - Variation of the authorisation to place on the market - Prohibition from placing medicinal products on the market - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2001/83/EC - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 114/51

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Acino AG, formerly Acino Pharma GmbH (Miesbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Buchner and E. Burk, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by: A. Sipos, G. Wilms, B.-R. Killmann and M. Šimerdová, subsequently by: B.-R. Killmann and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decisions of 29 March and 16 September 2010 relating to the suspension of the placing on the market of medicinal products for human use containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel manufactured on a certain site, to the withdrawal of batches of those medicinal products from the market, to the variation of the authorisation to place those medicinal products on the market and prohibition from placing them on the market

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Rules that it is not necessary to give judgment on the application to the extent that it is directed against Commission Decisions C(2010) 2204 and C(2010) 2208 of 29 March 2010, and against Commission Decisions C(2010) 6429 and C(2010) 6436 of 16 September 2010; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rules that it is not necessary to give judgment on the application to the extent that it is directed against Commission Decisions C(2010) 2204 and C(2010) 2208 of 29 March 2010, and against Commission Decisions C(2010) 6429 and C(2010) 6436 of 16 September 2010;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Acino AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Acino AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1250,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Power3 Medical Products, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Steven B. Rash, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the bestof my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

The Report fully compiles with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| September 9, 2005 | /s/Steven B. Rash                    |   |   |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                   | Steven B. Rash                       |   |
|                   |                                 |   |
|                   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                   | Power3 Medical Products, Inc.   |   |

 

1

----
# C_2012174EN.01001303.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2012 — Comap SA v European Commission

(Case C-290/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Duration of the infringement - Concept of ‘continuity’)

2012/C 174/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Comap SA (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. de Guigné, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-377/06 Comap v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F 1/38.121 — FITTINGS) — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Infringement of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal — Infringement of the principle of strict interpretation of criminal law — Notion of ‘public distancing’ — Distortion of evidence — Failure to state reasons

Comap

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Comap SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Comap SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---
# C_2011311EN.01003002.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat (Austria)) — Publikumsrat des Österreichischen Rundfunks v Österreichischer Rundfunk

(Case C-162/11) (1)

1

2011/C 311/50

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.

1

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 0

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

#### § 0.195 Procedure with respect to jurisdictional disagreements.

Any disagreement between or among heads of the organizational units as to their respective jurisdictions shall be resolved by the Attorney General, who may, if he so desires, issue an order in the numbered series disposing of the matter.

[Order No. 423-69, 34 FR 20388, Dec. 31, 1969. Redesignated by Order No. 445-70, 35 FR 19397, Dec. 23, 1970]
#### § 367.9040 Account 904, Uncollectible accounts.

This account must be charged with amounts sufficient to provide for losses from uncollectible service company revenues. Concurrent credits must be made to account 144, Accumulated provision for uncollectible accounts—Credit (§ 367.1440). Losses from uncollectible accounts also must be charged to account 144 (§ 367.1440).
### **CHAPTER 12E—NIAGARA POWER PROJECT**

Sec.
836.
Authorization to license construction and operation; licensing conditions.
836a.
Rules governing issuance of license.
### §1667b. Lessee's liability on expiration or termination of lease

#### (a) Estimated residual value of property as basis; presumptions; action by lessor for excess liability; mutually agreeable final adjustment

Where the lessee's liability on expiration of a consumer lease is based on the estimated residual value of the property such estimated residual value shall be a reasonable approximation of the anticipated actual fair market value of the property on lease expiration. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the estimated residual value is unreasonable to the extent that the estimated residual value exceeds the actual residual value by more than three times the average payment allocable to a monthly period under the lease. In addition, where the lessee has such liability on expiration of a consumer lease there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the lessor's estimated residual value is not in good faith to the extent that the estimated residual value exceeds the actual residual value by more than three times the average payment allocable to a monthly period under the lease and such lessor shall not collect from the lessee the amount of such excess liability on expiration of a consumer lease unless the lessor brings a successful action with respect to such excess liability. In all actions, the lessor shall pay the lessee's reasonable attorney's fees. The presumptions stated in this section shall not apply to the extent the excess of estimated over actual residual value is due to physical damage to the property beyond reasonable wear and use, or to excessive use, and the lease may set standards for such wear and use if such standards are not unreasonable. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the right of a willing lessee to make any mutually agreeable final adjustment with respect to such excess residual liability, provided such an agreement is reached after termination of the lease.

#### (b) Penalties and charges for delinquency, default, or early termination

Penalties or other charges for delinquency, default, or early termination may be specified in the lease but only at an amount which is reasonable in the light of the anticipated or actual harm caused by the delinquency, default, or early termination, the difficulties of proof of loss, and the inconvenience or nonfeasibility of otherwise obtaining an adequate remedy.

#### (c) Independent professional appraisal of residual value of property at termination of lease; finality

If a lease has a residual value provision at the termination of the lease, the lessee may obtain at his expense, a professional appraisal of the leased property by an independent third party agreed to by both parties. Such appraisal shall be final and binding on the parties.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, §183, as added Pub. L. 94–240, §3, Mar. 23, 1976, 90 Stat. 259.)
§ 115.88 Data review for corrective action. ( a ) The agency shall review data collected and aggregated pursuant to § 115.87 in order to assess and improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, practices, and training, including by: ( 1 ) Identifying problem areas;
( 2 ) Taking corrective action on an ongoing basis; and
( 3 ) Preparing an annual report of its findings and corrective actions for each facility, as well as the agency as a whole.
( b ) Such report shall include a comparison of the current year's data and corrective actions with those from prior years and shall provide an assessment of the agency's progress in addressing sexual abuse.
( c ) The agency's report shall be approved by the agency head and made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means.
( d ) The agency may redact specific material from the reports when publication would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility, but must indicate the nature of the material redacted.
Regional Haze - BART Eligiblity & Source Inventory - VI WAPA - 3 Islands

Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (VI WAPA) 

Location Unit No. Source Type Capacity Heat Input Fuel Date Potential To Emit (PTE), tons per year BART Eligible?

MW mmBTU/hr Type Constructed SO2 NOx PM10/PM (Note 15)

St Thomas 11 Note 1, 9, 11, 12 18 268 No 6 Oil 1968 646 371 60/??? Yes

St Thomas 13 Note 1, 9, 10, 11, 12 35 485 No 6 Oil 1970 1116 670 28/??? Yes

St Thomas 12 Note 2, 11, 12, 14 16 290 No.2 Oil 1970 381 1288 15/??? Yes

St Thomas 14 Note 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 16 298 No.2 Oil 1972 392 1326 16/??? Yes

St Thomas 15 Note 2, 11, 12 23 310 No.2 Oil 1981 292 504 5/5 No

St Thomas 18 Note 2, 12 23 323 No.2 Oil 1992 301 451 5/5 No

St Thomas 22 Note 3, 12 24 247 No.2 Oil 2002 228 337 9/22.6 No

St Thomas 23 Note 3, 12 39 484 No.2 Oil 2004 313 592 30/30 No

St Thomas HRSG (designed for units 12, 14, 15 and 18) - but duct burner no longer in service

St Croix 10 Note 1, 6, 7 7.5 260 No 6 Oil 1967 396 359 45/??? Yes

St Croix 11 Note 1, 6, 7 18 468 No 6 Oil 1970 712 646 81/??? Yes

St Croix 16 Note 2 23 339 No 2 Oil 1981 297 554 53/??? No

St Croix 17 Note 2 20 336 No 2 Oil 1988 294 457 53/??? No

St Croix 19 Note 3 24.5 318 No 2 Oil 1993 278 451 79/??? No

St Croix 20 Note 3 24.5 318 No 2 Oil 1994 281 451 79/??? No

St Croix HRSG (designed for units 16 and 17) - but duct burner no longer in service

St Croix Diesel engine Note 8 650 kW 6.24 No. 2 Oil 1994 3 53 1/??? No

St John STJ-188-92 Note 5 2.5 25 diesel 1974 12.5 165 ???/33 No

Notes

(1) Fossil Fuel (Oil) fired steam electric boiler 

(2) Combustion Turbines (cogeneration units) firing No 2 Oil - generating electricity; Units 12 and 14 on St Thomas have GE Turbine Model PG 5211 

(3) Combustion Turbines (simple cycle units) firing No. 2 Oil - generating electricity 

(4) The applicable BART-eligible source category name is: Fossil Fuel-fired Steam Electric Plants (250 MM BTU heat input per hour) 

(5) The 2.5 MW diesel engine-generator on St John is used for emergency power with annual permit restrictions of 703,620 gallons No 2 (diesel) oil
### SUBCHAPTER CIX—SAN PEDRO RIPARIAN NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

This  schedule   contains   summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  statements  of the  company  and is  qualified  in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001101395
<NAME>                        Duck Head Apparel Company, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000


<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                           JUL-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                          2633
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   5969
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    (996)
<INVENTORY>                                                    14339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               22261
<PP&E>                                                         23915
<DEPRECIATION>                                                (13446)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 32730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           6266
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                          24
<OTHER-SE>                                                     21147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 32730
<SALES>                                                        13114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                13114
<CGS>                                                           8052
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   8052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                4331
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               158
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  573
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      28
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              545
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     545
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.22



</TABLE>
# C_2011160EN.01001202.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/12

---

Action brought on 25 March 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-145/11)

2011/C 160/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and A. Marghelis, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by refusing to approve two applications for marketing authorisations of the veterinary medicinal products CT-Line 15 % Premix and CT-Line 15 % Oral Powder in the context of the decentralised procedure laid down by Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 32 and 33 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by refusing to approve two applications for marketing authorisations of the veterinary medicinal products CT-Line 15 % Premix and CT-Line 15 % Oral Powder in the context of the decentralised procedure laid down by Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 32 and 33 of that directive;

1

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Commission submits that the abovementioned Directive 2001/82/EC does not allow a Member State, in the context of the decentralised procedure, to carry out a legal and scientific assessment of an application for authorisation. The purpose of the validation phase is merely to verify if the dossier submitted is identical in all the Member States, if it is complete, and if it includes the list of Member States concerned, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 32(1) of the directive. The applicant thus criticises the defendant for refusing applications for authorisation by relying inter alia on grounds concerning the composition of the medicinal product and its pharmaceutical form, its alleged non-compliance with national law and the possible dangers to public health.

The Commission also points out that, at the validation stage, the Member States affected by an application for authorisation have the obligation to approve the assessment report submitted by the reference Member State, unless they invoke a serious potential risk to human or animal health or the environment, in compliance with Article 33 of the directive. The French authorities therefore failed to follow the procedure laid down by that article.

---

(1)  Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 1).

1

---
### SUBCHAPTER LIX–FF—GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE
HomeLatest FilingsPrevious Page

    - SEC Home  »
    - Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System  »
    - Company Search  »
    - Current Page

535 MADISON AVENUENEW YORK NY 10022         

535 MADISON AVENUENEW YORK NY 10022         212 750-3343

SARATOGA INVESTMENT CORP. CIK#: 0001377936 (see all company filings)
State location: NY | State of Inc.: **MD** | Fiscal Year End: 0228formerly: GSC INVESTMENT CORP. (filings through 2010-08-03)formerly: GSC Investment LLC (filings through 2007-03-21)Get **insider transactions** for this **issuer**.File Number: **812-15459**

||
||
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 26,
2009 of the Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Deborah H. MerrillDeborah H. MerrillVice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
-  Home 

# In This Section

                      -  The GLS Today                          -  What does the GLS do? 
                        -  The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation 
                        -  The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System 
                        -  Meet the Administrator 
                        -  Meet Our Team 
                        -  Careers at the GLS 
                        -  Contact the GLS 
                      -  Historic Photos and Other Artifacts 

# GLS Advisory Board meeting minutes September 28, 2021

Advisory-Board-Meeting-Minutes-(09-28-2021).pdf (273.44 KB)

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact					LaToya.James@dot.gov.*