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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard 

          - [Docket No. USCG-2009-0299] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Coast Guard, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Coast Guard is correcting a notice that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of January 7, 2010 (75 FR 998). The document announced termination of the Long Range Aids to Navigation (Loran-C) Signal commencing on or about February 8, 2010. The document had an incorrect word in the                         **DATES**                         section.                     

# DATES:

Effective January 13, 2010. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        If you have questions on this notice, contact Mr. Mike Sollosi, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, telephone (202) 372-1545,                         *Mike.M.Sollosi@uscg.mil.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of January 7, 2010, in                           ( print page 1800)    FR Doc. 2010-83, on page 998 in the second column under                     **DATES,**                     correct “Transmission of the Loran-C signal and phased decommissioning of the Loran-C infrastructure will commence on or about February 8, 2010” to read: “Termination of the Loran-C signal and phased decommissioning of the Loran-C infrastructure will commence on or about February 8, 2010.”                 

Dated: January 7, 2010. 

Mark W. Skolnicki, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.

[FR Doc. 2010-439 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
# C_2014421EN.01006202.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/62

---

Action brought on 2 September 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-89/14)

2014/C 421/91

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance and ordering it to pay that allowance to him, together with interest, since taking up his duties.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance, adopted on 11/11/2013 as appointing authority (PMO), notified on 19/11/2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance, adopted on 11/11/2013 as appointing authority (PMO), notified on 19/11/2013;

| — | order the defendant to pay him that allowance from the date he took up his duties at the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay him that allowance from the date he took up his duties at the Commission;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant interest at the rate applied by the ECB for its refinancing operations on the amount corresponding to each of those allowances, from the date when it became due until full payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant interest at the rate applied by the ECB for its refinancing operations on the amount corresponding to each of those allowances, from the date when it became due until full payment;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1685
MILDRED BIH NGANG, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-289-589) Submitted: February 29, 2008 Decided: March 12, 2008 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Nyoh, PETER NYOH AND ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Erica B. Miles, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mildred Bih Ngang, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the record and Ngang’s claims and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Ngang’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2007). We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# C_2014292EN.01001901.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/19

---

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-302/14)

2014/C 292/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet, K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, as regards Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (1), by failing to adopt, for some parts of its territory, the transposition provisions of the definitions in Article 2(2), (7) and (9) and the requirements laid down in Article 8(1), Article 9(1), Article 11(2) to (5), and Article 18 and Annex II or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 28(1) of the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, as regards Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (1), by failing to adopt, for some parts of its territory, the transposition provisions of the definitions in Article 2(2), (7) and (9) and the requirements laid down in Article 8(1), Article 9(1), Article 11(2) to (5), and Article 18 and Annex II or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 28(1) of the Directive;

1

| — | impose upon the Kingdom of Belgium, under Article 260(3) of the TFEU, a daily penalty of EUR 42  178,50 with effect from delivery of the judgment of the Court and payable to the European Union’s own resources account, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose upon the Kingdom of Belgium, under Article 260(3) of the TFEU, a daily penalty of EUR 42  178,50 with effect from delivery of the judgment of the Court and payable to the European Union’s own resources account, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure;

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2010/31/EU expired on 9 July 2012.

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13.

1

---
Currency Poster_Chinese.indd 1 urrency Poster_Chinese.indd 1 10/3/06 11:11:5 0/3/06 11:11:57
----

----

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Ellomay Capital Ltd.; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | /s/ Kalia WeintraubKalia WeintraubChief Financial Officer |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|

----

----
§ 71.25 Condition for certification. ( a ) When the Commissioner cannot conclude from the information before him that there is a basis for exempting a color additive from the requirement of batch certification, he will so order by appropriate listing in part 74 of this chapter. The Commissioner's order shall state in detail the specifications that shall be met by the color additive.
( b ) Each order shall state a period of time after which use of a color additive subject to batch certification but not from a batch certified by procedure prescribed in this section would result in adulteration of the product in which it is used.
EXHIBIT 32
----------




                             CERTIFICATIONS OF
            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
            ---------------------------------------------------



      The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

      Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of ALP Liquidating Trust.




                                         /s/   Gary Nickele
                                         ------------------------------
                                         Gary Nickele
                                         Chief Executive Officer




                                         /s/   Gailen J. Hull
                                         ------------------------------
                                         Gailen J. Hull
                                         Chief Financial Officer and
                                         Principal Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7892
STEVEN G. DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HARLEY LAPPIN, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-96-515-5-HC-BO-2) Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 6, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven G. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the dist rict court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Lappin , No. CA96-515-5-HC-BO-2 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5 and Dec. 3, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 610.14 Identity.

The contents of a final container of each filling of each lot shall be tested for identity after all labeling operations shall have been completed. The identity test shall be specific for each product in a manner that will adequately identify it as the product designated on final container and package labels and circulars, and distinguish it from any other product being processed in the same laboratory. Identity may be established either through the physical or chemical characteristics of the product, inspection by macroscopic or microscopic methods, specific cultural tests, or in vitro or in vivo immunological tests.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-1022, 333-50619 and 333-60587) pertaining to the Visio
Corporation 1990 Stock Option Plan, Visio Corporation 1995 Long-term Incentive
Compensation Plan, Visio Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan for Nonemployee
Directors, Visio Corporation 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and Visio
Corporation (formerly Kaspia Systems, Inc.) 1996 Stock Option Plan and the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-60577) pertaining to the sale of
additional shares of common stock of our report dated October 23, 1998, with
respect to the financial statements and schedule of Visio Corporation included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 1998.
 
Seattle Washington
December 24, 1998                                         /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Exhibit 99 - Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
 

      I, Shaun  O'Brien,  the Chief  Financial  Officer of CIS  Investments,  Inc.  ("CISI"),  the General Partner ofIDS Managed Futures II, L.P.(the "Partnership"),  and I, James A.  Davison,  the  President of CISI,  certify that (i) the attached  10-Q fullycomplies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in the attached Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition and results ofoperations of the Partnership.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James A. Davison         President         CIS Investments, Inc.         May 14, 2003
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shaun D. O'Brien         Chief Financial Officer         CIS Investments, Inc.         May 14, 2003
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 CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certifies to his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 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 as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Christopher D. MorrisChristopher D. MorrisChief Financial OfficerNovember 9, 2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CEC
Entertainment, Inc. and will be retained by CEC Entertainment, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2015138EN.01002501.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/25

---

Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-687/13 Unibail v OHIM

(Case C-513/14 P)

(2015/C 138/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Unibail Management

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal,

| — | Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and

| — | Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises a single ground of appeal in support of its appeal. OHIM submits that the General Court infringed the first sentence of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation. The General Court misconstrued not only the scope of the concept of general reasoning, but also its own case-law. Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for having reversed the burden of proof.

1

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2016118EN.01002702.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX)

(Case T-543/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark HOT SOX - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: provima Warenhandels GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Croll and H. Prange, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Renfro Corp. (Mount Airy, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: C. Schenk, M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2014 (Case R 1859/2013-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between provima Warenhandels GmbH and Renfro Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders provima Warenhandels GmbH to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders provima Warenhandels GmbH to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  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 Avitar,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on
Form10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Jay C.  Leatherman,
Jr.,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, to my knowledge, that:

     (1) The Report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)
or15(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: May 13, 2005

                                      /s/ Jay C. Leatherman, Jr.
                                      -------------------------
                                      Jay C. Leatherman, Jr.
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      (Principal Financial
                                      and Accounting Officer), Secretary