alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ACTION AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

Nos. 82-1498, 82-1644.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Aug. 23, 1983.

Decided May 13, 1986.

Stewart J. Katz, argued, Keller, Thoma, Schwarze, Schwarze, DuBay & Katz, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Washington, D.C., Patrick Szy-manski, argued, Bernard Gottfried, Regional Director N.L.R.B. Detroit, Mich., for respondent.

Before: LIVELY, Chief Judge, JONES, Circuit Judge, and RUBIN, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Carl B. Rubin, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

ORDER

The above case was originally before this Court on a petition filed by Action Automotive, Inc., to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board issued against said Petitioner, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, on 24 June 1982, and upon a cross-application filed by the National Labor Relations Board to enforce said order. On 30 September 1983, this Court entered its judgment denying enforcement of the Board’s Order. 717 F.2d 1033 (1983). Thereafter, on 24 February 1984, the Board filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on 14 May 1984. On 19 February 1985, the Supreme Court issued its Decision reversing the judgment of this Court. 469 U.S. 490, 105 S.Ct. 984, 83 L.Ed.2d 986 (1985). On 15 April 1985, a certified copy of the Supreme Court’s Judgment was mailed to this Court.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is hereby ordered and adjudged by the Court that this Court’s Judgment of 30 September 1983, be vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the Court that the Board’s Order issued against Petitioner is enforced and that Petitioner, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall abide by and perform the directions of the Board contained in said order.
# EUR-Lex - 31984R3517 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31984R3517

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3517/84 of 13 December 1984 on the classification of goods falling within subheading 24.01 B of the Common Customs Tariff **

*
Official Journal L 328 , 15/12/1984 P. 0009 - 0009 Finnish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 4 P. 0047 Spanish special edition: Chapter 02 Volume 13 P. 0005 Swedish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 4 P. 0047 Portuguese special edition Chapter 02 Volume 13 P. 0005 *

*****

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3517/84

of 13 December 1984

on the classification of goods falling within subheading 24.01 B of the Common Customs Tariff

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 97/69 of 16 January 1969 on measures to be taken for uniform application of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2055/84 (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas, in order to ensure that the Common Customs Tariff Nomenclature is applied uniformly, measures must be taken concerning the classification of leave-stalks, stems, ribs and trimmings of tobacco leaves;

Whereas heading No 24.01 of the Common Customs Tariff annexed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3400/84 (4), relates in particular to unmanufactured tobacco; tobacco refuse;

Whereas the products in question have the characteristics of tobacco refuse falling within heading No 24.01 and must therefore be classified in this heading; whereas, within this heading, subheading 24.01 B should be chosen;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Common Customs Tariff Nomenclature,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Leave-stalks, stems, ribs and trimmings of tobacco leaves shall be classified in the Common Customs Tariff within subheading:

24.01 Unmanufactured tobacco; tobacco refuse:

B. Other.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 January 1985.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 December 1984.

For the Commission

Karl-Heinz NARJES

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 14, 21. 1. 1969, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 191, 19. 7. 1984, p. 1.

(3) OJ No L 172, 22. 7. 1968, p. 1.

(4) OJ No L 320, 10. 12. 1984, p. 1.
From: Armstrong, Ashley

Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 10:26 AM

To: Armstrong, Ashley Subject: Regional Standards Enforcement for Residential Central Air Conditi oners, Heat Pumps, and

Furnaces

Good Morning,

DOE issued a notice of data availability announcing the Framework document for regional standards enforcement of residential central air conditioners, heat pumps, and furnaces. You can find both
documents on DOE's enforcement website at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/certification_enforcement.html

. DOE will be holding a joint publi c meeting with the Federal Trade Commission regarding regional standards enforcement on December 16, 2011. Note, foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters for this public meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures, so please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards immediately (202.586.2945) if you plan to attend the public meeting to begin the screening process.

Best Regards, Ashley
#### § 1.81 Rejection of entry filing.

FDA may reject an entry filing for failure to provide complete and accurate information that is required pursuant to this subpart.
(logo)KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



           1600 Market Street
           Philadelphia, PA 19103-7212



                        Independent Accountants' Report



The Board of Directors
GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc.:



We have examined  management's  assertion  about GE Capital  Mortgage  Services,
Inc.'s  (the  Company's)   compliance  with  the  minimum  servicing   standards
identified  in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of America's  UNIFORM  SINGLE
ATTESTATION  PROGRAM FOR  MORTGAGE  BANKERS  (USAP) as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1995 included in the accompanying management assertion.  Management
is  responsible  for the  Company's  compliance  with  those  minimum  servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was made in  accordance   with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our opinion, except for noncompliance with minimum servicing  standard I. 1.,
management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned minimum
servicing  standards  as of and for the year ended  December  31, 1995 is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

As discussed in management's  assertion,  the material noncompliance occurred at
the Company  during the year ended  December 31,  1995.  With respect to minimum
servicing  standard  I.l., 10 of the 38 accounts  tested  contained  reconciling
items  that  were  not  resolved  within  90  calendar  days of  their  original
identification.

These conditions were considered in determining the nature, timing and extent of
audit tests applied  in our audit of the 1995 consolidated financial statements,
and this  report  does not affect our report  dated  January  19,  1996 on those
consolidated financial statements.

                                                        /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


March 8, 1996
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-09-00551- CV

Rhett We bster P ease, A ppellan t

v. F irst Nat ional B ank of

Giddings , Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT O F LEE CO UNTY NO. 301 4, H ONO RAB LE EDWARD F . JANECK A, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Rhett Webster Pease appea ls from a county court order vacating a writ of
re en t ry he obtained in justice court afte r filing an emer g ency application for writ of ree nt ry t o proper ty owned by appellee First National Ba nk of Giddings. This Court has aff irmed the order of the county court dism issing the litigation underly ing this appe al. See P ease v . First Nat ’l Bank of Giddings , No. 03-11-00192- CV, 2012 WL 1948343 (Tex. App.—Austin May 25, 2012, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Our aff

irmance of the order that dismiss ed the underly ing litigation in its entirety rende rs moot a

ny appea l r elated to the merits of the justice court’s or county court’s dispositi on of that litigation, including this appea l challeng ing the county court’s pre- dismiss al dispositi on of the writ of re entry . We theref ore dismiss this appeal as moot._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Henson Dismissed as Moot Filed: May

25, 2012

2
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 117.170 Reanalysis. ( a ) You must conduct a reanalysis of the food safety plan as a whole at least once every 3 years;
( b ) You must conduct a reanalysis of the food safety plan as a whole, or the applicable portion of the food safety plan: ( 1 ) Whenever a significant change in the activities conducted at your facility creates a reasonable potential for a new hazard or creates a significant increase in a previously identified hazard;
( 2 ) Whenever you become aware of new information about potential hazards associated with the food;
( 3 ) Whenever appropriate after an unanticipated food safety problem in accordance with § 117.150(b); and
( 4 ) Whenever you find that a preventive control, combination of preventive controls, or the food safety plan as a whole is ineffective.
( c ) You must complete the reanalysis required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and validate, as appropriate to the nature of the preventive control and its role in the facility's food safety system, any additional preventive controls needed to address the hazard identified: ( 1 ) Before any change in activities (including any change in preventive control) at the facility is operative; or
( 2 ) When necessary to demonstrate the control measures can be implemented as designed: ( i ) Within 90 calendar days after production of the applicable food first begins; or
( ii ) Within a reasonable timeframe, provided that the preventive controls qualified individual prepares (or oversees the preparation of) a written justification for a timeframe that exceeds 90-calendar days after production of the applicable food first begins.
( d ) You must revise the written food safety plan if a significant change in the activities conducted at your facility creates a reasonable potential for a new hazard or a significant increase in a previously identified hazard or document the basis for the conclusion that no revisions are needed.
( e ) A preventive controls qualified individual must perform (or oversee) the reanalysis.
( f ) You must conduct a reanalysis of the food safety plan when FDA determines it is necessary to respond to new hazards and developments in scientific understanding.
#### Grant Hospital of Chicago, Appellant, v. Alice Bierfield et al., Appellees.

Gen. No. 41,145.

*580opinion filed October 1, 1940.

Rupert D. Jones and David R. Domke, for appellant; Alexander Roth-stein and Gabriel Goldberg, for appellee Nick Gene.

Opinion by

Justice McSurely.

“Not to be published in full.”
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 706 

Expressing support for the designation of a ‘‘Women’s Health Research 

Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2018 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY (for herself, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. JACKSON

LEE, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of 

Illinois, Mr. RUSH, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Mr. FOSTER, and Mr. MOULTON) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of a ‘‘Women’s 

Health Research Day’’. 

Whereas women constitute 50.4 percent of Americans; 

Whereas women across races, ethnicities, socioeconomic 

statuses, and age groups experience many diseases and 

disorders differently than men; 

Whereas the incidence, prevalence, symptomology, and severity of disease may differ between men and women across 

races, ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, and age groups; 

Whereas women and men have fundamental biological differences; 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 706 IH 

Whereas women across races, ethnicities, socioeconomic 

statuses, and age groups vary in the risks and benefits 

of medical therapies; 

Whereas for many years, women across races, ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, and age groups were underrepresented in biomedical and clinical research; 

Whereas the improvement of women’s health relies on sexand gender-based biomedical and clinical research; 

Whereas the promise of individualized medicine cannot be realized without sex- and gender-based parity in research; 

Whereas, on January 25, 2016, the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH) implemented a policy requiring federally 

funded investigators to consider sex as a biological variable in preclinical research; and 

Whereas this policy ushered in a new era of inclusivity and 

parity in women’s health research: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses support for the designation of a 

3 ‘‘Women’s Health Research Day’’; and 

4 (2) supports efforts to— 

5 (A) recognize the importance of biomedical 

6 and clinical research to women’s health and 

7 well-being to advancing human health; 

8 (B) increase awareness of the value of sex9 and gender-based biomedical research; and 

10 (C) encourage individuals, including re11 searchers and patients, to advocate on behalf of 

12 sex- and gender-inclusive research across races, 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 706 IH 

1 ethnicities, socioeconomic statuses, and age 

2 groups. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
§ 1.405 When does FDA have to issue a decision on an appeal? ( a ) The presiding officer must issue a written report that includes a proposed decision confirming or revoking the detention by noon on the fifth calendar day after the appeal is filed; after your 4 hour opportunity for submitting comments under § 1.403(h), the presiding officer must issue a final decision within the 5-calendar day period after the appeal is filed. If FDA either fails to provide you with an opportunity to request an informal hearing, or fails to confirm or terminate the detention order within the 5-calendar day period, the detention order is deemed terminated.
( b ) If you appeal the detention order, but do not request an informal hearing, the presiding officer must issue a decision on the appeal confirming or revoking the detention within 5 calendar days after the date the appeal is filed. If the presiding officer fails to confirm or terminate the detention order during such 5-calendar day period, the detention order is deemed terminated.
( c ) If you appeal the detention order and request an informal hearing and your hearing request is denied, the presiding officer must issue a decision on the appeal confirming or revoking the detention within 5 calendar days after the date the appeal is filed. If the presiding officer fails to confirm or terminate the detention order during such 5-calendar day period, the detention order is deemed terminated.
( d ) If the presiding officer confirms a detention order, the article of food continues to be detained until we terminate the detention under § 1.384 or the detention period expires under § 1.379, whichever occurs first.
( e ) If the presiding officer terminates a detention order, or the detention period expires, FDA must terminate the detention order as specified under § 1.384.
( f ) Confirmation of a detention order by the presiding officer is considered a final agency action for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 702.
SERVED: MAY 22, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FROST AD ATELIER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0294 

ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE 

AND 

NOTICE OF HEARING DATES 

lOiZ 23 ;."::.. q: 28 

Counsel for the Respondent has filed a Motion for Continuance stating he '' .. .is 

anticipating surgery during this time period [when this case is set for hearing] and will be 

unavailable ... " The request is accompanied by a doctor's note confirming the surgery 

and recovery period. 

This matter was originally set for hearing almost a year ago and postponed pursuant to 

Respondent's request. The current hearing was set by notice dated February ofthfs year. 

The Motion will be granted only due to the circumstances underlying the request. We 

will not favorably receive an additional request to continue this case from the 

Respondent. 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on July 10 and 11, 2012, inclusive, inthe U.S. Tax Court: Room 2-1350, Federal 

Building and U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m.·eac]l day. The parties 

should vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00p.m. each pay. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the 

proper pleading(s). Pleadings may be forwarded by fax ress mail, courier or 

postal service. -' 

Attachment - Service List 

1 ·. 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

David W. Williams, Respondent's Counsel 

Attorney at Law 

16372 Underhill Lane 

Huntington Beach, CA 92647 

TEL: 714-745-5610 

Lisa J. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7110 

FAJ(: 310-725-6816 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0294 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-3 66-.5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following 

address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright BuildingSuite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### § 2520.220 What contracts and subcontracts, in addition to those listed in 2 CFR 180.220, are covered transactions?

Although the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.220(c) allows a Federal agency to do so (also see optional lower tier coverage in the figure in the appendix to 2 CFR part 180), NSF does not extend coverage of nonprocurement suspension and debarment requirements beyond first-tier procurement contracts under a covered nonprocurement transaction.
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.





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Calgon Carbon Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Leroy M. Ball, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
thatto the best of
my 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 result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented therein.





/s/ Leroy M. BallChief
      Financial OfficerOctober
      30, 2009





This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# EUR-Lex - 31994R0566 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994R0566

**Council Regulation (EC) No 566/94 of 10 March 1994 extending Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 establishing a cohesion financial instrument **

*
Official Journal L 072 , 16/03/1994 P. 0001 - 0001 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 566/94 of 10 March 1994 extending Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 establishing a cohesion financial instrument

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 of 30 March 1993 establishing a cohesion financial instrument (1), and in particular Article 11 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas continuity should be ensured between the cohesion financial instrument and the Cohesion Fund;

Whereas such continuity can be effective only if the beneficiary Member States are enabled to prepare projects sufficiently in advance;

Whereas, in accordance with the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council and Article 8 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 792/93, projects submitted must be of a sufficient scale to have a significant impact in the fields of environmental protection or in the improvement of trans-European transport infrastructure networks;

Whereas it is appropriate that the Member States concerned should be enabled to fulfil this objective,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 '1 April 1994' shall be replaced by '31 December 1994'.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 March 1994.

For the Council

The President

Y. PAPANTONIOU

(1) OJ No L 79, 1. 4. 1993, p. 74.