alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014242EN.01000201.xml

| 25.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 23 July 2014

appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency

2014/C 242/03

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 79 thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that the Council is to appoint as members of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency (‘the Management Board’) one representative from each Member State. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that the Council is to appoint as members of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency (‘the Management Board’) one representative from each Member State.

| (2) | By its Decision of 13 May 2013 (2), the Council appointed 12 members of the Management Board. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By its Decision of 13 May 2013 (2), the Council appointed 12 members of the Management Board.

2

| (3) | The Government of Ireland has informed the Council of its intention to replace the Irish representative on the Management Board and has submitted a nomination for a new representative, who should be appointed for a period which runs until 31 May 2017, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Government of Ireland has informed the Council of its intention to replace the Irish representative on the Management Board and has submitted a nomination for a new representative, who should be appointed for a period which runs until 31 May 2017,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Ms Sharon Jane MCGUINNESS, of Irish nationality, born on 13 July 1965, shall be appointed member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency, replacing Mr Martin LYNCH, for the period from 23 July 2014 to 31 May 2017.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 23 July 2014.

For the Council

The President

S. GOZI

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 138, 17.5.2013, p. 14.

2

---
5115.000 Scope of part.

(1) The Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3) at Appendix AA contains detailed guidance

pertaining to the source selection process. The AS3 is used in conjunction with this part and

supplements the mandatory DoD Source Selection Procedures. It contains information on source

selection processes and techniques that the Army uses for competitive, negotiated acquisitions using

either formal or informal source selection procedures. See DoD Source Selection Procedures at 1.3,

page 2 for exceptions.

(2) The AS3 is a comprehensive source selection resource which recites best practices that promote

source selection flexibility and consistency within a given framework in Army source selections.

Army personnel shall use the AS3 resource when conducting competitive source selections. The

extent to which personnel will use the processes and techniques described in this supplement will

depend upon the complexity and dollar value of each acquisition and the available resources. When

using the AS3, apply prudent business sense to tailor the processes to fit the circumstances.

Parent topic: Part 5115 - Contracting by Negotiation
March 12, 2015

Mr. Brett Kanda

Rogue Vision, LLC

4600 Polaris Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89103

Dear Mr. Kanda:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your February 18, 2015, exemption request of behalf of Rogue Vision, LLC

into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0393), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Nia Daniels

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                ---------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


      1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
            10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
            report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OC8 (the
            "Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as
            a whole, do 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 report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
            other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the
            period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act
            periodic reports;

      4.    I am responsble for reviewing the activities performed by the
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s)
            required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and
            except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
            servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
            agreement(s) in all material respects; and

      5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
            criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
            reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
            asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
            accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
            13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
            except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
            instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
            disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
      Bank of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 27, 2007


      /s/ Steve Bailey
      ----------------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
§ 763.11 Maximum loss amount, guarantee period, and conditions. ( a ) *Maximum loss amount.* The maximum loss amount due to nonpayment by the buyer covered by the guarantee is based on the type of guarantee initially selected by the seller as follows: ( 1 ) The prompt payment guarantee will cover: ( i ) Three amortized annual installments; or
( ii ) An amount equal to three annual installments (including an amount equal to the total cost of any tax and insurance incurred during the period covered by the annual installments).
( 2 ) The standard guarantee will cover an amount equal to 90 percent of the outstanding principal balance.
( b ) *Guarantee period.* The period of the guarantee will be 10 years from the effective date of the guarantee unless terminated earlier under § 763.23.
( c ) *Conditions.* The seller will select an escrow agent to service a Land Contract Agreement if selecting the prompt payment guarantee plan, and a servicing agent to service a Land Contract Agreement if selecting the standard guarantee plan. ( 1 ) An escrow agent must provide the Agency evidence of being a bonded title insurance company, attorney, financial institution or fiscally responsible institution.
( 2 ) A servicing agent must provide the Agency evidence of being a bonded commercial lending institution or similar entity, registered and authorized to provide escrow and collection services in the State in which the real estate is located.
#### § 930.82 Effective time.

The provisions of this part, and of any amendment thereto, shall become effective at such time as the Secretary may declare, and shall continue in force until terminated, or suspended.
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-01056-CR

JIMMIE JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 338th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1346765).

TO THE 338TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 30th day of October 2014, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on November 25, 2013. After submitting the 

case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised 

by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms 

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered October 30, 2014.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings 

and Keyes. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Radack.
WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

February 27, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

LUMBERMAN'S UNDERWRITING )

ALLIANCE, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cv-645-MEF

)

EMORY LEE YOUNG, )

)

Defendant. )

RULE 26(f) ORDER

The parties are hereby reminded of the obligation, imposed by Rule 26(f) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan. The

Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable but not

later than August 25, 2006.

The longstanding practice in this district is that dispositive motions shall be filed no

later than 90 days prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary from that schedule,

they should present, in the plan, specific case related reasons for the requested variance.

This case will be set for trial before the undersigned judge during one of that judge's

regularly scheduled civil trial terms. The pretrial date is normally set within four to six

weeks of a scheduled trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms are available on

the court's website located at http://almd.uscourts.gov in the civil case information section.

This court may or may not hold a scheduling conference before issuing a scheduling

Case 3:06-cv-00645-MEF-TFM Document 3 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

order. If the court holds a scheduling conference, counsel may participate in the scheduling

conference by conference call.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow the form of the Uniform

Scheduling Order adopted by the judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is also

available on the court's website.

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35 of the Appendix of Forms to

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE this the 3rd day of August, 2006.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00645-MEF-TFM Document 3 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00177-WHA-DRB Document 1 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MOTIVE DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Appellant

v.

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Intellectual Property and 

Director of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, 

Intervenor

______________________

2023-2375

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-

00288, IPR2022-00289.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 23-2375 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 12/18/2023
2 MOTIVE DRILLING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. VIDAL 

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

December 18, 2023

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: December 18, 2023

Case: 23-2375 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 12/18/2023
§ 3201.116 Intermediates—Cleaner Components. ( a ) *Definition.* Intermediates—Cleaner Components are intermediate ingredients used specifically for formulating finished cleaning products. Examples of Intermediates—Cleaner Components include chelating agents, surfactants, hydrotropes, fatty acids, or solvents.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 55 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 10, 2019, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased Intermediates—Cleaner Components. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased Intermediates—Cleaner Components.
[83 FR 31848, July 10, 2018]
#### § 900.600 General.

This subpart shall contain such requirements as pertain to the information collection provisions under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

[63 FR 10492, Mar. 4, 1998]
# L_2014197EN.01008701.xml

| 4.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 197/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 197/87

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) No 692/2014 of 23 June 2014 concerning restrictions on the import into the Union of goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol, in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 183 of 24 June 2014
  )

On page 10, Article 3(b):

for:

| ‘(b) | goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol which have been made available to the Ukrainian authorities for examination, for which compliance with the conditions conferring entitlement to preferential origin has been verified in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 and Regulation (EU) No 374/2014 (1) or in accordance with the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

‘(b)

read:

| ‘(b) | goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol which have been made available to the Ukrainian authorities for examination, for which compliance with the conditions conferring entitlement to preferential origin has been verified and for which a certificate of origin has been issued in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 and Regulation (EU) No 374/2014 (2) or in accordance with the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

‘(b)

---

(1)  
  OJ L 118, 22.4.2014, p. 1.’,

1

(2)  
  OJ L 118, 22.4.2014, p. 1.’.

2

---
Case 2:06-cv-00653-WHA-CSC Document 30 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2923 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2923

      To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Vinclozolin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2006

    Mr. Kyl introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Vinclozolin.

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

SECTION 1. VINCLOZOLIN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.19 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Vinclozolin) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 21 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 21 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 2
# ~.~ 0IJTIl<G SYMllOI. 

## 4!JM-1-

~

# c.~ [4910-13-PI Federal Aviation Administration

RIN 2120-AA64 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AnON

IDocket No. FAA-2010-0642; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-332-AD; Amendme t 

# WOO ;41-/0 ''Qh 39_*"'***' AD 2010-**-**] II I-

, OllTING5YM .ANfi' -.(

0 I 14CFR Part 39

Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Model BAe 146and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) for the products lis ed 'n above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) OI!T1NQ SYMBOL originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to identify and correct an unsafe "mAlSlSI() condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: DATE OuTING SYMBOL 

### * *' *' [FJuelleaks and failed fasteners (have been reported] inthe region of the rear spar rootjoint attachment fitting atwing rib 2. *' 

## ** 

# • • • • • • • The unsafe condition is stress corrosion failures inthe region ofthe rear spar rootjoint ~mALSlSlG attachment fitting atwing rib 2, which could lead to reduced structural integrity ofthe "ore wing, and consequent reduced controllability ofthe airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

IPF AMERICA, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv616-MHT

) 

EISENMANN CORPORATION and )

HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING )

OF ALABAMA, L.L.C., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to remand (doc. no. 3)

is set for submission, without oral argument, on August

17, 2006, with all briefs and evidentiary materials due

by said date.

DONE, this the 1st day of August, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00616-MHT-SRW Document 5 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00660-LES-CSC Document 3 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00660-LES-CSC Document 3 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 714.37 Instructions and forms.

The Deputy Administrator shall cause to be prepared and issued such instructions and forms as are necessary for carrying out the regulations in the part.
Part 240 - RESERVED

Parent topic: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
§ 760.1306 Availability of funds. ( a ) Payments under this subpart are subject to the availability of funds. The total available program funds are $290,000,000.
( b ) FSA will prorate the available funds by a national factor to ensure payments do not exceed $290,000,000. The payment will be made based on the national payment rate as determined by FSA. FSA will prorate the payments based on the amount of milk production eligible for payments in a fair and reasonable manner.
( c ) A reserve will be created to handle new applications, appeals, and errors.
#### § 932.230 Assessment rate.

On and after January 1, 2024, an assessment rate of $28 per ton is established for California olives.

[89 FR 57064, July 12, 2024]
#### § 956.40 Expenses.

The committee is authorized to incur such expenses as the Secretary may find are reasonable and likely to be incurred by the committee for its maintenance and functioning, and to enable it to exercise its powers and perform its duties in accordance with the provisions of this part. The funds to cover such expenses shall be acquired in the manner prescribed in §§ 956.42 and 956.45.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 9 ,

2019

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00066- CV

SANDRA GEIS, Appellant

V.
MADISUN KENZI GEIS AND PAIGE LAUREN GEIS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016-78903

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed October 24, 2018 granting summary judgment. The record reflects that this is an interlocutory order. The order does not address appellees’ request for attorney’s fees.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total2

Fitness Corp. v. Jackson , 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); see also Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. v. Kirklin , 479 S.W.3d 458, 461 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (per curiam) (“A summary judgment that does not dispose of attorneys’ fees is not a final, appealable order.”).
The order on summary judgment does not dispose of all parties and all claims and no statute explicitly provides for an appeal from this interlocutory order. Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction over the summary judgment appeal. The appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain.