alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2022175EN.01003401.xml

| 30.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 175/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 175/34

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 20/2022

of 4 February 2022

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2022/1068]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1845 of 20 October 2021 amending Decision (EU) 2017/175 as regards the period of validity of the EU Ecolabel criteria for tourist accommodation and of the related assessment and verification requirements (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1845 of 20 October 2021 amending Decision (EU) 2017/175 as regards the period of validity of the EU Ecolabel criteria for tourist accommodation and of the related assessment and verification requirements (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is added in point 2m (Commission Decision (EU) 2017/175) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32021 D 1845: Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1845 of 20 October 2021 (OJ L 376, 22.10.2021, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32021 D 1845: Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1845 of 20 October 2021 (OJ L 376, 22.10.2021, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Decision (EU) 2021/1845 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 5 February 2022, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 4 February 2022.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Nicolas VON LINGEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 376, 22.10.2021, p. 1.

1

(*)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CHARLES M. RAY, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-1824

LT Case No. 2008-CF-014423-A-O 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed September 6, 2022

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Orange County, 

Renee A. Roche, Judge.

Charles M. Ray, Graceville, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, NARDELLA and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
# C ou r t

of A p p e al s

of t h e S t at e of

G e or gi a

A

T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e r e b y p a s s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g o r d e r :

A 1 8 A 0 4 9 5

. K

E V I N C O C K

F I E L D v

. O L U S E

U N O S H I N O W

O

.

T h i s c a s e o r i

g i n a t e d a s a d i s p o s s e s s o r

y p r o c e e d i

n g i n m a g i s t r a t e c o u r t

.

F o l l o w i n g a

n a d v e r s e r u l i n g

, d e f e n d a n t K e v i n C o c k f i e l d a p p e a l e d t o t h e s u p e r i o r

c o u r t

. T h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t a l s o r u l e d i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f

, a n d C o c k f

i e l d f i l e d t h i s

d i r e c t a p p e a l f r o m t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t ’ s o r d e r

. W e l

a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n

.

B e c a u s e t h e s u

p e r i o r c o u r t ’ s o r d e r d i s p o s e d o f a d e n o v o a p p e a l f r o m a

m a g i s t r a t e c o u r t d e c i s i o n

, C o c k f i e l d w a s r e q u i r e d t o f o l l o w t h e d i s c r e t i

o n a r y a p p e a l

p r o c e d u r e

. S e e O C G

A § 5

- 6

- 3 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; E

n g l i s h v

. D e l

b r i d g e

, 2 1 6 G a

. A

p p

. 3 6 6

, 3 6 7

( 4 5 4 S E 2 d 1 7 5 ) ( 1 9 9 5 )

. H i s f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w t h i s p r o c e d

u r e d e p r i v e s u s o f j u

r i s d i c t i o n

t o c o n s i d e r t h i s a p p e a l

, w h i c h i s h e r e b y D I S M I S S E D

.

C o u r t o f Ap p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e

,

At l a n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i

s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f Ap p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w

r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. November 09, 2017

11/09/2017
###### Editorial Note on Part 400

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 400 appear at 78 FR 69289, Nov. 19, 2013.

#### § 400.6 Board headquarters.

The headquarters of the Board are located within the U.S. Department of Commerce (Herbert C. Hoover Building), 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, within the office of the Foreign-Trade Zones staff.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7218

LARRY JAMES TYLER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. TONEY CHAVIS; PATRICIA RAY; JAMES HUDSON; WADELL COE; ROSENA JAMES , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Mary G. Lewis , District Judge. ( 9:21

- cv - 01233

- MGL

- MHC )

Submitted : October 14, 2021 Decided: October 19, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not b inding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Larry James Tyler seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying Tyler’s motion to appoint counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Tyler seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisiona l process.
DISMISSED
From: Wayne Boudreaux [mailto:wboudreaux@enrud.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:17 PM To: Hancy, Cindy Wang Subject: CWT Estimate

See attachment.

Thanks!

Wayne Boudreaux EnRUD Resources, Inc. Compliance Assistance Division (713) 943-1600: fax: 8989

<< CWTQuote.xls>>

From: Hancy, Cindy Wang [mailto:chancy@rti.org] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 12:37 PM To: 'wboudreaux@enrud.com' Subject: El Paso Method Information Request

Mr. Boudreaux,

It was a pleasure speaking with you today. Per ou r conversation here is a formal written request for information.

RTI International is providing support to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on uniform standards for cooling towers. We are evaluating the costs and impacts of possible requirements. One of the options being considered is the requirement of the “El Paso method”. We are now trying to collect information on the costs associated with implementing this method, and we would appreciate any information you could provide. Specifically, we are looking for itemized costs associated with the equipment and analyzer (shipping and installation would also be helpful) necessary for facilities to test on their own. We are also looking for costs associated with other options for testing a facility may have: 1. Buying equipment except for the FID and having a contractor test. 2. Purchasing no equipment and having a cont ractor provide all equipment and perform testing. These options would include cost of renting the equipment, labor rates, fees per tower, site visit travel costs, etc. Thank you so much for you cooperation. If you have any question feel free to contact me at 919.541.6623.Regards, Cindy Wang Hancy RTI International P.O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone: (919) 541-6623 Fax: (919) 316-3420EnRUD Resources, Inc. 1006 Vista Road Pasadena, Texas 77504 713-943-1600, fax: 8989



### Item Description Cost

El Paso Method VOC Stripping System

Includes 3 liters of 1/4" Ceramic Saddles -6 Month Certification - Dolly Accessories -Teflon and Nylon Tubing -Swagelok Fittings -Water Container for Cleaning -Handling Fee $550.00 Total: $3850.00

Installation - See "Mounting Board" tab.

TVA1000B FID w/probe & carrying case (Toxic Vapor Analyzer) -s/n: Includes: VOC 

# Cooling Water Apparatus Cost

$3,300.00 VOC Stripper

TVA1000B Analyzer w/batter y Probe Read-Out Display Water-trap Probe Tip Hydrogen Cylinder Charging Unit (plug-in) Hydrogen Gas Regulator Shoulder Strap $10,000.00

Total Cost = $13,850.00

Testing 1 Tower (minimum 4 hour charge) * $300.00 Preparation/Setup $45.00 Equipment/Calibrations Gas/Zero Air (Dailey charge) $335.00

Total = $680.00

If travel is required, associated charge will be assessed.

Hotel per night $125.00 Travel Time per hour $50.00 Mileage per mile (as per IRS rates) $0.50 Per Diem per Day $35.00

* Typical tower generally takes an hour to test if tower is accessible by vehicle. 

# Typical Cooling Water Testing Cost TVA 1000B
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Thon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
31, 2005 of ProUroCare Medical Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
      being prepared;

   b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

   c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

   a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

   b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

                                           /s/ Richard Thon
                                           --------------------------------
Date:  May 11, 2005                        Name:  Richard Thon
                                           Title:  Chief Financial Officer
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 242

To make technical corrections in patent law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2003

Mr. ISSA (for himself, Mr. FARR, Mr. NETHERCUTT, and Mr. MEEHAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To make technical corrections in patent law.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Plant Breeders Equity 

5 Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE. 

7 (a) HEADING.—The heading of section 162 of title 

8 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 
2

•HR 242 IH 

1 ‘‘§ 162. Description, claim, novelty’’. 

2 (b) NOVELTY.—Section 162 of title 35, United States 

3 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘No plant patent application shall be denied, nor 

6 shall any issued plant patent be invalidated, on the 

7 grounds that the invention was described in a printed pub8 lication to which section 102(b) of this title applies, unless 

9 the invention was described in a printed publication in this 

10 or a foreign country more than ten years prior to the date 

11 of the application for patent in the United States.’’. 

12 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating 

13 to section 162 in the table of sections for chapter 15 of 

14 title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as fol15 lows:

‘‘162. Description, claim, novelty.’’.

16 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

18 of this Act and shall apply to any application for a plant 

19 patent that is filed on or after that date, or is pending 

20 on that date, and to any patent in force on that date.

Æ
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2391

To amend title 35, United States Code, to promote research among 

universities, the public sector, and private enterprise. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2003

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. COBLE, 

Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Ms. HART, Mr. BOUCHER, 

Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. WEXLER, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend title 35, United States Code, to promote research 

among universities, the public sector, and private enterprise.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cooperative Research 

5 and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON NONPUBLIC INFORMATION IN OB7 VIOUSNESS DETERMINATIONS. 

8 (a) CONDITIONS FOR PATENTABILITY; NOVELTY.—

9 Section 102(f) of title 35, United States Code, is amended 
2

•HR 2391 IH 

1 by inserting after ‘‘patented,’’ the following: ‘‘except that 

2 subject matter under this subsection shall not be consid3 ered prior art or as evidence of obviousness under section 

4 103 of this title,’’. 

5 (b) CONDITIONS FOR PATENTABILITY; NONOBVIOUS6 NESS.—Section 103(c) of title 35, United States Code, is 

7 amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(c) Subject matter developed by another person, 

9 which qualifies as prior art only under one or both of sub10 sections (e) and (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not 

11 preclude patentability under this section where the subject 

12 matter and the claimed invention were, at the time of the 

13 earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under this 

14 title, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation 

15 of assignment to the same person.’’. 

16 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by this 

18 Act shall apply to any patent granted before, on, or after 

19 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

20 (b) SPECIAL RULE.—The amendments made by this 

21 Act shall not affect any final decision of a court or the 

22 United States Patent and Trademark Office rendered be23 fore the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall not 

24 affect the right of any party in any action pending before 

25 the United States Patent and Trademark Office or a court 
3

•HR 2391 IH 

1 on the date of the enactment of this Act to have that par2 ty’s rights determined on the basis of the provisions of 

3 title 35, United States Code, in effect on the day before 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
§ 28.600 Semi-annual compilation. ( a ) The head of each agency shall collect and compile the disclosure reports (see Appendix B) and, on May 31 and November 30 of each year, submit to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives a report containing a compilation of the information contained in the disclosure reports received during the six-month period ending on March 31 or September 30, respectively, of that year.
( b ) The report, including the compilation, shall be available for public inspection 30 days after receipt of the report by the Secretary and the Clerk.
( c ) Information that involves intelligence matters shall be reported only to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with procedures agreed to by such committees. Such information shall not be available for public inspection.
( d ) Information that is classified under Executive Order 12356 or any successor order shall be reported only to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives (whichever such committees have jurisdiction of matters involving such information) and to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with procedures agreed to by such committees. Such information shall not be available for public inspection.
( e ) The first semi-annual compilation shall be submitted on May 31, 1990, and shall contain a compilation of the disclosure reports received from December 23, 1989 to March 31, 1990.
( f ) Major agencies, designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), are required to provide machine-readable compilations to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives no later than with the compilations due on May 31, 1991. OMB shall provide detailed specifications in a memorandum to these agencies.
( g ) Non-major agencies are requested to provide machine-readable compilations to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
( h ) Agencies shall keep the originals of all disclosure reports in the official files of the agency.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6290

MICHAEL LYNN BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-417-7-JCT) Submitted: August 31, 2005 Decided: September 14, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Lynn Brown, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Lynn Brown, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his petition for writ of mandamus as a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and denying Brown relief. The district court must give a prisoner notice and an opportunity to respond before construing a mislabeled or unlabeled post-conviction motion as an initial § 2254 petition. Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003); United States v. Emmanuel , 288 F.3d 644, 649 (4th Cir. 2002). Here, Brown was not entitled to notice before the court construed his mandamus petition as a § 2254 petition because the instant action is not his first § 2254 petition.The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d- 3 - 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED