alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 304.2 Information to be furnished; grant or refusal of inspection. ( a ) FSIS shall give notice in writing to each applicant granted inspection and shall specify in the notice the establishment, including the limits of the establishment's premises, to which the grant pertains.
( b ) The Administrator is authorized to grant inspection upon his determination that the applicant and the establishment are eligible therefor and to refuse to grant inspection at any establishment if he determines that it does not meet the requirements of this part or the regulations in parts 305, 307, and part 416, §§ 416.1 through 416.6 of this chapter or that the applicant has not received approval of labeling and containers to be used at the establishment as required by the regulations in parts 316 and 317. Any application for inspection may be refused in accordance with the rules of practice in part 500 of this chapter.
( c ) ( 1 ) Any applicant for inspection at an establishment where the operations thereof may result in any discharge into the navigable waters in the United States is required by subsection 21(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (84 Stat. 91), to provide the Administrator with a certification as prescribed in said subsection that there is reasonable assurance that such activity will be conducted in a manner which will not violate the applicable water quality standards. No grant of inspection can be issued after April 3, 1970 (the date of enactment of the Water Quality Improvement Act), unless such certification has been obtained, or is waived because of failure or refusal of the State, interstate agency or the Secretary of the Interior to act on a request for certification within a reasonable period (which shall not exceed 1 year after receipt of such request).
( 2 ) However, certification is not initially required in connection with an application for inspection granted after April 3, 1970, for facilities existing or under construction on April 3, 1970, although certification for such facilities is required to be obtained within the 3-year period immediately following April 3, 1970. Failure to obtain such certification and meet the other requirements of subsection 21(b) prior to April 3, 1973, will result in the termination of inspection at such facilities on that date.
Further, any application for inspection pending on April 3, 1970, and granted within 1 year thereafter shall not require certification for 1 year following the grant of inspection but such grant of inspection shall terminate at the end of 1 year after its issuance unless prior thereto such certification has been obtained and the other requirements of subsection 21(b) are met. [35 FR 15558, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 41 FR 4889, Feb. 3, 1976; 44 FR 68813, Nov. 30, 1979; 62 FR 45024, Aug. 25, 1997; 64 FR 56415, Oct. 20, 1999; 64 FR 66545, Nov. 29, 1999; 65 FR 2284, Jan. 14, 2000]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          32,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,114
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               234,418
<PP&E>                                         789,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                 689,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 351,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,119,893
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     3,485,412
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   351,815
<SALES>                                        542,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               542,890
<CGS>                                           21,069
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               783,625
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,582
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (286,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (286,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (286,386)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
### §77iii. Effective time of qualification

#### (a) Effective time of registration or application for qualification of indenture

The indenture under which a security has been or is to be issued shall be deemed to have been qualified under this subchapter—

(1) when registration becomes effective as to such security; or

(2) when an application for the qualification of such indenture becomes effective, pursuant to section 77ggg of this title.

#### (b) Stop orders after effective time of qualification

After qualification has become effective as to the indenture under which a security has been or is to be issued, no stop order shall be issued pursuant to section 77h(d) of this title, suspending the effectiveness of the registration statement relating to such security or of the application for qualification of such indenture, except on one or more of the grounds specified in section 77h of this title, or the failure of the issuer to file an application as provided for by section 77eee(b)(2) of this title.

#### (c) Effect of subsequent rule or regulation on qualification

The making, amendment, or rescission of a rule, regulation, or order under the provisions of this subchapter (except to the extent authorized by subsection (a) of section 77nnn of this title with respect to rules and regulations prescribed pursuant to such subsection) shall not affect the qualification, form, or interpretation of any indenture as to which qualification became effective prior to the making, amendment, or rescission of such rule, regulation, or order.

#### (d) Liability of trustee under qualified indenture

No trustee under an indenture which has been qualified under this subchapter shall be subject to any liability because of any failure of such indenture to comply with any of the provisions of this subchapter, or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder.

#### (e) Power of Commission to conduct investigation

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as empowering the Commission to conduct an investigation or other proceeding for the purpose of determining whether the provisions of an indenture which has been qualified under this subchapter are being complied with, or to enforce such provisions.

(May 27, 1933, ch. 38, title III, §309, as added Aug. 3, 1939, ch. 411, 53 Stat. 1157; amended Pub. L. 101–550, title IV, §405, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2723.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1990—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–550 inserted before period at end ", or the failure of the issuer to file an application as provided for by section 77eee(b)(2) of this title".

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of Securities and Exchange Commission, with certain exceptions, to Chairman of such Commission, see Reorg. Plan No. 10 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1265, set out under section 78d of this title.
### SUBCHAPTER CXXII—BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
### SUBCHAPTER III—INTERVENTION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
#### George A. Raftery, Respondent, v. C. B. Russell Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, Ho opinion. . LaughIin, J., dissenting. '
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0356 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT MARTIN ARTHUN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 19 , 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 5 2022

10/05/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0356
### §9591. Administrative powers

#### (a) In general

In carrying out this chapter, the Under Secretary may—

(1) adopt and use a seal for the Agency, which shall be judicially noticed;

(2) hold hearings, sit and act, and take testimony as the Under Secretary may determine to be necessary or appropriate to carry out this chapter;

(3) acquire, in any lawful manner, any property that the Under Secretary determines to be necessary or appropriate to carry out this chapter;

(4) with the consent of another Federal agency, enter into an agreement with that Federal agency to utilize, with or without reimbursement, any service, equipment, personnel, or facility of that Federal agency;

(5) coordinate with the heads of the Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization of Federal agencies;

(6) develop procedures under which the Under Secretary may evaluate the compliance of a recipient of assistance under this chapter with the requirements of this chapter;

(7) deobligate assistance provided under this chapter to a recipient that has demonstrated an insufficient level of performance with respect to the assistance, or has engaged in wasteful or fraudulent spending; and

(8) provide that a recipient of assistance under this chapter that has demonstrated an insufficient level of performance with respect to the assistance, or has engaged in wasteful or fraudulent spending, shall be ineligible to receive assistance under this chapter for a period determined by the Under Secretary, consistent with the considerations under section 180.865 of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), beginning on the date on which the Under Secretary makes the applicable finding.

#### (b) Use of property

#### (1) In general

Subject to paragraph (2), in carrying out this chapter, the Under Secretary may, without cost (except for costs of care and handling), allow any public sector entity, or any recipient nonprofit organization, for the purpose of the development of minority business enterprises, to use any real or tangible personal property acquired by the Agency in carrying out this chapter.

#### (2) Terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions

The Under Secretary may impose reasonable terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions upon the use of any property under paragraph (1).

(Pub. L. 117–58, div. K, title VII, §100701, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1464.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b)(1), was in the original "this division" or "this Act", meaning div. K of Pub. L. 117–58, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1445, known as the Minority Business Development Act of 2021, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 9501 of this title and Tables.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  SBA Leadership 
-  Sheldon Shoemaker 

#   Sheldon Shoemaker

Deputy Inspector General

Office of Inspector General

            Download high-resolution image          

Sheldon Shoemaker is the Deputy Inspector General at the U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General (OIG).  He is the principal advisor to the Inspector General and assists in leading this dynamic oversight organization.  The organization provides nationwide oversight of SBA’s programs and operations, which include SBA’s role in the nation’s pandemic response—over a trillion dollars of lending authority, loan portfolios valued at hundreds of billions of dollars, small business contracting programs that result in over $150 billion in federal contracting dollars annually, and a robust portfolio of counseling programs that assist the nation’s economic engine—America’s small businesses.  

Mr. Shoemaker has over 20 years of leadership experience and more than 25 years of Federal service.  Mr. Shoemaker joined OIG in 2011 as a Special Assistant to the Inspector General and later served as Chief of Staff.  In 2018, he was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as the Assistant Inspector General for Management and Operations within the office.  Prior to joining OIG, he served as Section Chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Congressional Affairs Section.  He joined DEA in 1998 as a Program Analyst and beginning in 2002, served in various supervisory and management roles within the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Executive Policy and Strategic Planning Staff before taking on a position as Congressional Affairs Specialist in the Congressional Affairs Section.  Before joining DEA, Mr. Shoemaker spent a short time as Contract Specialist within the Department of Defense.

Mr. Shoemaker is a native of Dunbar, Pennsylvania and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from West Virginia Wesleyan College, majoring in Government and in Social Science.
**Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2011 – ara v OHIM – Allrounder (A with two rectangular motifs)**

**(Case T-174/10)**

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – International registration covering the European Community – Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs – Earlier national word mark A – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22-24, 38)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2010 (Case R 481/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between ara AG and Allrounder SARL. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders ara AG to pay the costs. |
### **CHAPTER 16B—EASTERN PACIFIC TUNA FISHING**
# C_2011095EN.01000601.xml

| 26.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Benevento (Provincial Tax Court, Benevento) lodged on 14 January 2011 — Volturno Trasporti SAS di Santoro Nino & C. v Camera di Commercio Benevento; Concessione Equitalia Sestri S.P.A.

(Case C-21/11)

2011/C 95/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Benevento

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Volturno Trasporti SAS di Santoro Nino & C.

Applicant:

Defendants: Camera di Commercio Benevento; Concessione Equitalia Sestri S.P.A.

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the Italian Chamber of Commerce fee, in particular, Article 18(3) of Italian Law No 580 of 29 December 1993 on the reorganisation of the Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Craftsmanship and Agriculture, as amended and supplemented, compatible with Council Directive No 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969, in particular, with Articles 10(c) and 12(e)?

1

---

(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.

1

---
# C_2011130EN.01000901.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 28 January 2011 — Amorim Energia BV v Ministério das Finanças e da Administração Pública

(Case C-38/11)

2011/C 130/16

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amorim Energia BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministério das Finanças e da Administração Pública

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU (formerly Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) preclude legislation of a Member State, such as Articles 46(1), 96(2) and (3), 14(3) and 89 of the Corporation Tax Code, which, in the context of elimination of economic double taxation of distributed profits, while complying with Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990, does not enable shareholder companies resident in another Member State to secure repayment of the tax deducted at source in the same circumstances as shareholder companies resident in Portugal, requiring for that purpose a longer minimum period of share ownership and a minimum but significant shareholding, delaying or rendering impracticable the elimination of economic double taxation?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States

1

OJ L 225, p. 6

---
**Exhibit      5.1**
cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge 

Andres Altamirano 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
§ 15.4 Removal and defense of suits. ( a ) The United States Attorney for the district where the civil action or proceeding is brought, or any Director of the Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, is authorized to make the statutory certification that the Federal employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment with the Federal Government at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose.
( b ) The United States Attorney for the district where the civil action or proceeding is brought, or any Director of the Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, is authorized to make the statutory certification that the covered person was acting at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose under circumstances in which Congress has provided by statute that the remedy provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act is made the exclusive remedy.
( c ) A certification under this section may be withdrawn if a further evaluation of the relevant facts or the consideration of new or additional evidence calls for such action. The making, withholding, or withdrawing of certifications, and the removal and defense of, or refusal to remove or defend, such civil actions or proceedings shall be subject to the instructions and supervision of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division or his or her designee.
[Order No. 2697-2003, 68 FR 74188, Dec. 23, 2003. Redesignated by Order No. 5968-2024, 89 FR 55517, July 5, 2024]
-  Home 
-  About Us 

# 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 

## Contact the GLS

Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS)Policy HeadquartersU.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave, SE W62-300Washington, DC20590United States

**Email:**GLS@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-0091****Alt Phone:**800-785-2779****Fax:**202-366-7147****Business Hours:**8:00am-5:00 pm ET, M-F

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

                            - GLS on Facebook
                            - GLS on Twitter
                            - GLS on Instagram
                            - Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway

# Contact Us

**Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS)**

WashingtonDC20590United States

GLS@dot.gov

GLS on Facebook

The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation

Hwy H2O

Marine Delivers
### §1101. Definitions

For the purposes of this chapter:

(a) The term "Commission" means the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission.

(b) The term "United States members" means members of the Commission appointed by the President. The term "Canadian members" means members of the Commission appointed by the appropriate authorities in Canada.

(Pub. L. 88–363, §2, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 299.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 88–363, §1, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 299, provided: "That this Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Roosevelt Campobello International Park Act'."
ENCLOSURE 3

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RECORD

As required by 40 CFR 51.102(e), the complete record of the public comment period, 

along with the text of the written comments, is located at the Air Division of the 

Department of Environmental Quality. The Department contact to access this 

information is the Director, Air Division.

As required by Section 2.1(h) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51, below is a summary of 

the comments received and responses thereto. Included is a brief statement of the 

subject, the identification of the commenter, the summary of the comment and the 

response (analysis and action taken). Each issue is discussed in light of all of the 

comments received that affect that issue. All comments have been reviewed and 

responses developed based on an evaluation of the issues raised in consideration of 

the overall goals and objectives of the air quality program and the intended purpose of 

the document under review.

1. SUBJECT: Enforcement discretion.

COMMENTER: Virginia Petroleum, Convenience and Grocery Association (VPCGA)

TEXT: The commenter noted that an enforcement discretion policy for the 

implementation of Stage II vapor recovery controls at new facilities has been offered to 

stations in the Richmond-Petersburg and Northern Virginia areas. He expressed 

support for this policy being extended to existing facilities in the same area since the 

proposed SIP revision would not be effective until January 1, 2017. He also expressed 

a desire to work with the department to help implement that extension of the policy.

RESPONSE: The enforcement discretion policy is not part of the proposed SIP 

revision for Stage II in the Richmond-Petersburg area; therefore, no changes to the 

proposal have been made based on this comment.

The department determined that the current enforcement discretion policy for the 

implementation of Stage II at new or modified gasoline dispensers was a prudent 

measure, because the additional equipment needed for complying with the Stage II 

requirement can be costly, and because Stage II program requirements are being 

phased out according to federal guidance. Maintaining existing Stage II equipment is 

not nearly as costly. Also, failure to maintain the Stage II equipment prior to 

appropriate decommissioning of such equipment may lead to other environmental 

concerns. The department does intend, however, to review the enforcement discretion 

policy at reasonable frequencies until it is no longer needed. If the department

determines that an extension of the policy is warranted, the policy may be updated to 

include existing gasoline dispensing units. However, such an update may be 

accompanied by specific requirements for equipment decommissioning, notification, 

recordkeeping, and so on. 

TEMPLATES\SIP-PLAN\PLN03-PC

SIP\STAGE II\RIC-MP\RMP-SIP-3.DOC