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

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL
~PROTECTION 79 Elm Street " Hartford, CT 06106-5127 www .ct.gov/deep Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

July 11, 2012
David Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch US EPA- New

England 5 Post Office Square- Suite 100 (Mail Code OEP05-2) Boston, MA02109-3912 Re: Commitment Regarding the CAA §1 10(a)(2)(A) Portion of Connecticut's Infrastructure Submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PMZ,5NAAQS Dear Mr

. Conroy: The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing the regulatory infrastructure requirements of § 110(a)(1) and (2) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 annual and2006 24-hour PM2 .5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) on September 4, 2008 and September 18, 2009, respectively

. Subsequent clarifications to those submissions, requested by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), were submitted on January 7, 2011 and August 19, 2011
. Most recently, your staff has requested we specifically incorporate the NAAQS into our regulations

. We understand that EPAis now preparing conditional approvals ofthese SIP revisions and has requested DEEP provide a commitment to submit such a revision to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies

. As required by EPA staff, DEEP hereby commits to provide a statement of legal authority and/or pursue adoption of anynecessary regulatory revisions to meet the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(A) by a date no laterthan one year fromthe date on which EPAfinalizes conditional approval of Connecticut's PM2 .5infrastructure submissions

. Connecticut appreciates EPA's efforts to move forward swiftly with conditional approval of the Infrastructure SIP revisions and approval of Connecticut's redesignation request andmaintenance plan SIP revision for the PM2 .5 NAAQS, submitted on June 22, 2012
. Redesignation of Connecticut's portion ofthe New

York/New

Jersey/Connecticut area to attainment will formally recognize the public health benefits fromthe successful implementation of federal and state control programs. Furthermore, redesignation will streamline the permitting process, thereby reducing regulatory burdens and supporting economic growth in the Connecticut portion of the area. Thankyou for your assistance expediting the approval ofthis SIP and redesignation

. Sincerely, awp-L Anne Gobin, Chief Bureau ofAir Management
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying amended Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Velocity Asset Management, Inc. for the three months ended September
30, 2005, I, James J. Mastriani, Chief Financial Officer of Velocity Asset
Management, Inc., do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1) such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three
months ended September 30, 2005, 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 such amended Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Velocity Asset Management, Inc.


                                               /s/ JAMES J. MASTRIANI
                                               --------------------------------
                                               James J. Mastriani
                                               Chief Financial Officer
      November 14, 2005

                                       29
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

40 

CA 15-01836 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ANGEL SANTIAGO, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK 

STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County

(Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered September 22, 2015 in a proceeding

pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
§ 1.1345 What records must I keep when I receive a food on the Food Traceability List? ( a ) Except as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, for each traceability lot of a food on the Food Traceability List you receive, you must maintain records containing the following information and linking this information to the traceability lot: ( 1 ) The traceability lot code for the food;
( 2 ) The quantity and unit of measure of the food (*e.g.,* 6 cases, 25 reusable plastic containers, 100 tanks, 200 pounds);
( 3 ) The product description for the food;
( 4 ) The location description for the immediate previous source (other than a transporter) for the food;
( 5 ) The location description for where the food was received;
( 6 ) The date you received the food;
( 7 ) The location description for the traceability lot code source, or the traceability lot code source reference; and
( 8 ) The reference document type and reference document number.
( b ) For each traceability lot of a food on the Food Traceability List you receive from a person to whom this subpart does not apply, you must maintain records containing the following information and linking this information to the traceability lot: ( 1 ) The traceability lot code for the food, which you must assign if one has not already been assigned (except that this paragraph does not apply if you are a retail food establishment or restaurant);
( 2 ) The quantity and unit of measure of the food (*e.g.,* 6 cases, 25 reusable plastic containers, 100 tanks, 200 pounds);
( 3 ) The product description for the food;
( 4 ) The location description for the immediate previous source (other than a transporter) for the food;
( 5 ) The location description for where the food was received (*i.e.,* the traceability lot code source), and (if applicable) the traceability lot code source reference;
( 6 ) The date you received the food; and
( 7 ) The reference document type and reference document number.
( c ) This section does not apply to receipt of a food that occurs before the food is initially packed (if the food is a raw agricultural commodity not obtained from a fishing vessel) or to the receipt of a food by the first land-based receiver (if the food is obtained from a fishing vessel).
#### § 1230.45 No violation; release.

As soon as examination of the samples is completed, if no violation of the act is detected, the chief of the district shall send a notice of release to the importer and a copy of this notice to the District Director of Customs for his information.
§ 1.700 Who is subject to a user fee under this subpart? ( a ) Accreditation bodies submitting applications or renewal applications for recognition in the third-party certification program;
( b ) Recognized accreditation bodies participating in the third-party certification program;
( c ) Third-party certification bodies submitting applications or renewal applications for direct accreditation; and
( d ) Accredited third-party certification bodies (whether accredited by recognized accreditation bodies or by FDA through direct accreditation) participating in the third-party certification program.
§ 1.655 How must an accredited third-party certification body monitor its own performance? ( a ) An accredited third-party certification body must annually, upon FDA request made for cause, or as required under § 1.631(f)(1)(i), § 1.634(d)(1)(i), or § 1.635(c)(1)(i), conduct a self-assessment that includes evaluation of compliance with this subpart, including: ( 1 ) The performance of its officers, employees, or other agents involved in auditing and certification activities, including the performance of audit agents in examining facilities, process(es), and food using the applicable food safety requirements of the FD&C Act and FDA regulations;
( 2 ) The degree of consistency among its officers, employees, or other agents involved in auditing and certification activities, including evaluating whether its audit agents interpreted audit protocols in a consistent manner;
( 3 ) The compliance of the accredited third-party certification body and its officers, employees, and other agents involved in auditing and certification activities, with the conflict of interest requirements of § 1.657;
( 4 ) Actions taken in response to the results of any assessments conducted by FDA or, where applicable, the recognized accreditation body under § 1.621; and
( 5 ) As requested by FDA, any other aspects of its performance relevant to a determination of whether the accredited third-party certification body is in compliance with this subpart.
( b ) As a means to assess its performance, the accredited third-party certification body may evaluate the compliance of one or more of eligible entities to which a food or facility certification was issued under this subpart.
( c ) Based on the assessments and evaluations conducted under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the accredited third-party certification body must: ( 1 ) Identify any deficiencies in complying with the requirements of this subpart;
( 2 ) Quickly implement corrective action(s) that effectively address the identified deficiencies; and
( 3 ) Under § 1.658, establish and maintain records of such corrective action(s).
( d ) The accredited third-party certification body must prepare a written report of the results of its self-assessment that includes: ( 1 ) A description of any corrective action(s) taken under paragraph (c) of this section;
( 2 ) A statement disclosing the extent to which the accredited third-party certification body, and its officers, employees, and other agents involved in auditing and certification activities, complied with the conflict of interest requirements in § 1.657; and
( 3 ) A statement attesting to the extent to which the accredited third-party certification body complied with the applicable requirements of this subpart.
( e ) An accredited third-party certification body may use a report, supplemented as necessary, on its conformance to ISO/IEC 17021: 2011 or ISO/IEC 17065: 2012 in meeting the requirements of this section.
# m8937.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 5.7.2018 C(2018) 4436 final To the Notifying Party Subject : Case M . 8937 – ADVENT INTERNATIONAL / ZENTIVA Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1 )( b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 8 June 2018 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertaking Advent International Corporation ("Advent", USA) acquire s within the meaning of Article 3(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over the whole of the undertaking Zentiva group ( " Zentiva ", Czech Republic ) currently controlled by Sanofi SA. ( France ), by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - for Advent: a global private equity investor , focused on investments in several sectors, namely business and financial services; healthcare; industrial; retail, consumer and leisure; and technology, media and telecom ; - for Zentiva : a pharmaceutical group focused on the development, manufacturing and marketing of generic pharmaceutical products primarily within Europe. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( c ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission
( Signed ) Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 214 , 19 . 6 . 2018 , p. 11 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Sea& shore
 
fall2004 |summer2004 | spring2004|winter2004-05| spring2005| summer2005| fall2005| winter2005 |spring2006 |summer2006 | fall2006 | winter2006| spring2007 | summer2007 | fall2007 | winter2007| spring2008 | summer2008 | fall2008 | winter2008 | spring2009 | summer2009 | fall2009 | winter2009-10| spring2010 | summer2010 | fall2010 |
 
SuDoc Number:D 207.15/3:
Item Number:0403-D-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:00563368
March 20, 2019
H. Res. 350 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 24, 2017. 

Resolved, That on such date as the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives may designate, official photographs of the 

House may be taken while the House is in actual session. 

Payment for the costs associated with taking, preparing, and 

distributing such photographs may be made from the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
§ 1107.42 Review cycles. ( a ) *Initial review cycle.* FDA intends to review the SE Report and either communicate with the applicant as described in § 1107.40 or take an action under § 1107.44 within 90 calendar days of FDA's receipt of the SE Report, or within 90 calendar days of determining that the predicate was found to be commercially marketed (other than for test marketing) in the United States as of February 15, 2007 (if applicable), whichever is later. This 90-day period is called the “initial review cycle.”
( b ) *Additional review cycles.* If FDA issues a deficiency notification under § 1107.40(d) during the initial review cycle, FDA will stop reviewing the SE Report until it receives a response from the applicant or the timeframe specified in the notification of deficiencies for response has elapsed. If the applicant fails to respond within the time period provided in the notification of deficiency, FDA will issue an order denying marketing authorization under the criteria set forth in § 1107.48. If the applicant's response to the notification of deficiencies provides the information FDA requested, but FDA identifies additional deficiencies, FDA may issue an additional deficiency notification. Each response will begin a new 90-day review cycle.
( c ) *Inadequate response.* If the applicant's response to FDA's deficiency notification(s) does not provide the information FDA requested, or the applicant provides information but the SE Report is still deficient, FDA generally intends to issue an order denying market authorization under the criteria set forth in § 1107.48. At any time before FDA issues an order, an applicant may make a written request to withdraw an SE Report under § 1107.22.
#### Helen CUMMINGS, petitioner, v. Togo WEST, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 97-1884.

June 26, 1998.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
# m8848.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 6.4.2018 C(2018) 2168 final To the Notifying Parties Subject : Case M . 8848 – CATHAY CAPITAL PRIVATE EQUITY / EQUISTONE PARTNERS EUROPE / E WINKEMANN Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1 )( b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 12 March 2018 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Cathay Capital Private Equity SAS ("CCPE") (France) and Equistone Partners Europe Ltd (" Equistone ") (UK) acquire , within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation , joint control o ver the whole of E. Winkemann GmbH (" Winkemann ") (Germany ) by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: – CCPE is an independent investment firm which manages various investment funds in industries including consumer/service, digital/media, healthcare, industrials and software; – Equistone is an independent investment firm which manages various investment funds in various industries, primarily in consumer and travel, financial services, specialist engineering and support services; – Winkemann is a manufacturer and supplier of precision stamped metal parts for the automobile, automobile supply and electrical industries. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( a ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission
(Signed) Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 105 , 20.3.2018 , p. 5 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 996 Reported in House (RH)]







                                                 House Calendar No. 225
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 996

                          [Report No. 109-646]

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 994) expressing 
 the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of 
 the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 
                               11, 2001.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2006

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 994) expressing 
 the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of 
 the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 
                               11, 2001.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the resolution (H. Res. 994) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks 
launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. The 
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption 
without intervening motion or demand for division of the question 
except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their designees; and (2) one 
motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 994 pursuant to 
this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.
                                                 House Calendar No. 225

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 996

                          [Report No. 109-646]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 994) expressing 
 the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of 
 the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 
                               11, 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 12, 2006

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
March 28, 1980

427 A.2d 1203

#### Commonwealth v. Brown, Appellant.

Argued September 12,1979.

Daniel M. Pell, for appellant;

Sheryl Ann Dorney, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee at No. 304;

Daniel R. Kehm, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee at No. 369.

Before PRICE, WIEAND and VAN der VOORT, JJ.*

*

 Judge Donald E. Wieand is sitting by special designation.

Order affirmed.