alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

| 1.   | Definition      of Terms.  All capitalized terms used in this Fourth      Amendment but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to such      terms in the Agreement. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | New      Definitions.  Section 1      of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following new      definitions: |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | Utilization      of GCI. Section 2.A. of the Agreement is hereby amended as      follows: |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

| 4.   | Delivery      of Traffic.  Section      2.A. of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following new      subsections: |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5.   | Charges. |
|----------------|----------|

| (a)   | MCI Northbound      Traffic.  Section 2.B.(1) of the Agreement is hereby      amended to add the followingprovision: |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b)   | MCI Southbound      Traffic.  Section 2.B.(2) of the Agreement is hereby      amended to add the followingprovision: |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| (c)   | ***  Section      2.B. of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following new      subsection: |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (d)   | *** and ***      Services.  Section 2.B. of the Agreement is hereby      amended to add the following newsubsection: |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Philip Herwig, Deceased. William Behrens, Appellant; Otto P. Burkard, as Executor of Philip Herwig, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to discover property alleged to he wrongfully withheld from executors by one, William Behrens, a claimant thereto, said claimant appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, entered January 15, 1962 which, *inter alla,*confirmed the report of a Referee rendered after hearings before him; adjudged that the balance and accumulated interest in a specified savings account belonged solely to the decedent’s estate; ordered said claimant to deliver the bankbook to the petitioner; and directed the -bank to pay the moneys in said account plus interest to the executors of the decedent’s estate. Decree affirmed, with costs to the executors payable by the -claimant *(Matter of Creelcmore,*1 N T 2d 284; cf. *Matter of iSullivan,*6 A D 2d 970). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 580.27 When may BOEM cancel my permit? The Regional Director may cancel a permit at any time. ( a ) If we cancel your permit, the Regional Director will advise you by certified or registered mail 30 days before the cancellation date and will state the reason.
( b ) After we cancel your permit, you are still responsible for proper abandonment of any drill site according to the requirements of 30 CFR 251.7(b)(8). You must comply with all other obligations specified in this part or in the permit.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1406 When will BSEE notify me and provide penalty information? If the Reviewing Officer determines that a civil penalty should be assessed, the Reviewing Officer will send the violator a letter of notification. The letter of notification will include: ( a ) The amount of the proposed civil penalty;
( b ) Information on the violation(s); and
( c ) Instruction on how to obtain a copy of the case file, schedule a meeting, submit information, or pay the penalty.
#### John J. McCloskey, as Sheriff of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, v. Joseph Eckhaus et al., Individually and as General Partners of Phoenix Motel Co., et al., Appellants.

Judgment entered April 15, 1963, directing defendants-appellants to turn over to the Sheriff a certain mortgage on property in Arizona and an accompanying note, unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs-respondents. (Debtor and Creditor Law, § 278, subd. 1, par. b; Civ. Prac. Act, § 916 [now CPLR, §§ 5201, 6202].) We construe the second decretal paragraph of the judgment which is somewhat ambiguous to require the individuals who control The Wolf Corporation to cause it to make the payments to the extent The Wolf Corporation is able to do so. We do not determine the rights of Preferred Properties, Inc., or of any third person in and to the mortgage and promissory note and this affirmance is without prejudice to those rights, if any. We have disregarded personal statements in respondents’ brief regarding counsel as immaterial and unnecessary. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.; Rabin, J., concurs in the following memorandum: I, too, reach the conclusion that there must be an affirmance. If the defendants-appellants were holding the mortgage as collateral against a possible ultimate deficiency arising out of the breach of the first lease then I would say that they had a sufficient interest in that mortgage to retain it and the direction to turn it over to the Sheriff would have been improper. But the position of the defendants-appellants is that they hold this mortgage as security for the performance of the second lease rather than the first. There is nothing in the record to sustain the position that they have a right to hold the mortgage as security for that lease. Accordingly, I join in the affirmance.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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


In connection with the Annual Report of Universal Detection Technology (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacques Tizabi, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of
the Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss..1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.



Date: April 15, 2008


By: /s/ Jacques Tizabi
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacques Tizabi,
Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
Sanitized Copy

Sanitized Copy Attachment 5 Range of composition
#### WENK, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et. al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Action by Theodore Wenk against the city of New York and others.

No opinion. Motion granted, and reargument of demurrers to the answer set down for January 23, 1903.
**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**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), John R. Schwab; Chief Financial Officer of NCO Group, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) that: 

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: August 9, 2006 |   |   | /s/ John R. Schwab                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|----------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   |   |  

 

 

John R. SchwabChief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. |
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In connection with the Annual Report of Universal Detection Technology (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     (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.

Date: March 30, 2005



/s/ Jacques Tizabi
-----------------------------
Jacques Tizabi
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and Acting Chief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27054]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0492; FRL- 9749-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; 
Determinations of Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing 
the September 14, 2012, direct final rule that makes several 
determinations relating to certain 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
areas in California. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final 
action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also published on 
September 14, 2012. EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 77 FR 56775 on September 14, 
2012, is withdrawn as of November 7, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office, 
AIR-2, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-
3901, telephone number (415) 972-3963, or email ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is withdrawing the September 14, 2012 
(77 FR 56775), direct final rule that makes several determinations 
relating to 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in California and 
thereby suspending certain attainment-related requirements for as long 
as these areas continue to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient 
air quality standard. The subject areas include Amador and Calaveras 
Counties, Chico, Kern County, Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, Nevada 
County, Sutter County, and Ventura County. In the direct final rule, 
EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by October 15, 2012, 
the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. On September 10, 2012, 
EPA received a comment, which it interprets as adverse and, therefore, 
EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA will address the comment 
in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, 
also published on September 14, 2012 (77 FR 56797). EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 29, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.282 published in the 
Federal Register on September 14, 2012 (77 FR 56775) on page 56782 is 
withdrawn as of November 7, 2012.

[FR Doc. 2012-27054 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
September 16, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________



### m 02-30960

_______________



### E QUAL 

### E MPLOYMENT 

### O PPORTUNITY 

### C OMMISSION 

### ,

Plaintiff-Counter DefendantAppellee-Cross-Appellant,

VERSUS



### K&B L OUISIANA 

### C ORPORATION 

### , D OING B USINESS AS R ITE A ID C ORPORATION ,


### Defendant-Counter ClaimantAppellant-Cross-Appellee.

_________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana


### m 00–CV–2238

_________________________

Before J OLLY , S MITH , and E MILIO M. G ARZA , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : * The EEOC sued, alleging that K&B Louisiana Corporati on engaged in unlawful discrimination for failing to rehire Johnny Williams on t he basis of her sex. After a bench trial, the
court ruled that K&B had engaged in an unlawfulemployment practice, refused injunctive relief, and ordered each side to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. K&B appeals on various ground s, including its assertion that there was no direct evidence of discrimination; * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.2

K&B als o seeks fees and costs. The EEOC

cros s-appeals the decision not to award injunctive relief.

We have read the briefs and pertinent portions of the record and have h e ard the arguments of counsel, and have consulted the applicable caselaw. We find no reversible

error. There was certainly direct evidence of sex-based discrimination, includi ng an admission by K&B’s manager that he preferred
to h ire men for a particular post. Consequently, the EEOC did not have to
prove that Williams was qualified. The district
court was well within its discretion in declining injunctive relief. The court’s refusal to shift
costs or attorney s fees is a fair resolu t ion of this matter, which badly needs to be put to rest.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### § 57.6801 Vehicle repair.

Vehicles containing explosive material and oxidizers shall not be taken into a repair garage or shop.
# C_2023193EN.01000801.xml

| 1.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/8

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11101 – CEPSA / BOH / BWT)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 193/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A. (‘CEPSA’, Spain), jointly controlled by the Carlyle Group L.P. (USA) and Mubadala Investment Company PJSC (United Arab Emirates), |
| --- | --- |

—

Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A. (‘CEPSA’, Spain), jointly controlled by the Carlyle Group L.P. (USA) and Mubadala Investment Company PJSC (United Arab Emirates),

| — | Bio-Oils Huelva, S.L.U. (‘BOH’), owned by Bio-Oils Energy, S.A.U. (‘Bio-Oils’, both Spain), and |
| --- | --- |

—

Bio-Oils Huelva, S.L.U. (‘BOH’), owned by Bio-Oils Energy, S.A.U. (‘Bio-Oils’, both Spain), and

| — | Bio Waste Trading, S.L.U. (‘BWT’, Spain), owned by Bio-Oils. |
| --- | --- |

—

Bio Waste Trading, S.L.U. (‘BWT’, Spain), owned by Bio-Oils.

CEPSA will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of BOH and BWT.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | CEPSA is an integrated oil and gas company active globally, |
| --- | --- |

—

CEPSA is an integrated oil and gas company active globally,

| — | BOH is active in the production and sale of biofuels, |
| --- | --- |

—

BOH is active in the production and sale of biofuels,

| — | BWT is active in the sourcing of food waste and the sale of food waste-derived products. |
| --- | --- |

—

BWT is active in the sourcing of food waste and the sale of food waste-derived products.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.11101 – CEPSA / BOH / BWT

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                            2,906,543
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    22,545,395
<ALLOWANCES>                      (313,800)
<INVENTORY>                      29,995,215
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 64,563,699
<PP&E>                           28,704,758
<DEPRECIATION>                   16,108,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   88,704,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            29,215,823
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             4,060,461
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                          9,947,814
<OTHER-SE>                        9,720,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     88,704,337
<SALES>                          28,207,788
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 28,222,150
<CGS>                            17,555,932
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    25,822,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  8,266,515
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  637,469
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   1,762,234
<INCOME-TAX>                        629,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      1,133,234
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .22
        

</TABLE>
§ 70.212 Status change reports. ( a ) If there is a change in operational status that affects the respirable dust sampling requirements of this part, the operator shall report the change in operational status of the mine, mechanized mining unit, or designated area to the MSHA District Office or to any other MSHA office designated by the District Manager. Status changes shall be reported in writing or electronically within 3 working days after the status change has occurred.
( b ) Each specific operational status is defined as follows: ( 1 ) Underground mine: ( i ) *Producing* —has at least one MMU unit producing material.
( ii ) *Nonproducing* —no material is being produced.
( iii ) *Abandoned* —the work of all miners has been terminated and production activity has ceased.
( 2 ) MMU: ( i ) *Producing* —producing material from a working section.
( ii ) *Nonproducing* —temporarily ceased production of material.
( iii ) *Abandoned* —permanently ceased production of material.
( 3 ) DA: ( i ) *Producing* —activity is occurring.
( ii ) *Nonproducing* —activity has ceased.
( iii ) *Abandoned* —the dust generating source has been withdrawn and activity has ceased.
THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Six Months EndedJune 30, 2008
    
    
    Twelve Months Ended December 312007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003(Millions of Dollars)Earnings:Pretax earnings
    
    $
    145
    
    
    $
    466
    
    
    $
    482
    
    
    $
    426
    
    
    $
    214
    
    
    $
    397Fixed charges
    
    
    162
    
    
    
    319
    
    
    
    299
    
    
    
    280
    
    
    
    294
    
    
    
    294Net earnings
    
    
    307
    
    
    $
    785
    
    
    $
    781
    
    
    $
    706
    
    
    $
    508
    
    
    $
    691Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    147
    
    
    $
    294
    
    
    $
    278
    
    
    $
    267
    
    
    $
    280
    
    
    $
    284Adjustments
    
    
    15
    
    
    
    25
    
    
    
    21
    
    
    
    13
    
    
    
    14
    
    
    
    10Fixed charges
    
    $
    162
    
    
    $
    319
    
    
    $
    299
    
    
    $
    280
    
    
    $
    294
    
    
    $
    294Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.90
    
    
    
    2.46
    
    
    
    2.61
    
    
    
    2.52
    
    
    
    1.73
    
    
    
    2.35
#### § 57.22225 Auxiliary equipment stations (I-C mines).

Battery charging stations, compressor stations, and electrical substations shall not be installed underground or within 50 feet of a mine opening.
§ 49.15 Mine rescue station. ( a ) Every operator of an underground mine shall designate, in advance, the location of the mine rescue station serving the mine.
( b ) Mine rescue stations are to provide a centralized storage location for rescue equipment. This centralized storage location may be either at the mine site, affiliated mines, or a separate mine rescue structure.
( c ) Mine rescue stations shall provide a proper storage environment to assure equipment readiness for immediate use.
( d ) Authorized representatives of the Secretary shall have the right of entry to inspect any designated mine rescue station.