alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.3105 1,4-Bis[(2-methylphenyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione. ( a ) *Identity.* The color additive is 1,4-bis[(2-methylphenyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione (CAS Reg. No. 6737-68-4).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* ( 1 ) The substance listed in paragraph (a) of this section may be used as a color additive in contact lenses in amounts not to exceed the minimum reasonably required to accomplish the intended coloring effect.
( 2 ) Authorization and compliance with this use shall not be construed as waiving any of the requirements of sections 510(k), 515, and 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). A person intending to introduce a device containing 1,4-bis[(2-methylphenyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione listed under this section into commerce shall submit to the Food and Drug Administration either a premarket notification in accordance with subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, if the device is not subject to premarket approval, or submit and receive approval of an original or supplemental premarket approval application if the device is subject to premarket approval.
( c ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore the color additive is exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
[49 FR 30066, July 26, 1984]
AFS-11-143-E 

Feb 11 2011 

 Exemption No. 9837B 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0111 

Mr. Michael Daigneault 

Director, Flight Standards 

CitationShares Management LLC 

5 American Lane 

Greenwich, CT 06831 

Dear Mr. Daigneault: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend and amend 

Exemption No. 9837, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, 

and lists the revised conditions and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated January 18, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of CitationShares Management LLC (CitationShares) for an extension and 

amendment to Exemption No. 9837, as amended. That exemption from § 135.255(f)(1) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows CitationShares to make instrument flight rules 

(IFR) takeoffs from foreign and military airports when the visibility is less than 1 statute mile 

or make an instrument approach when the visibility is less than 1⁄2 mile. The amendment 

request would add the Citation X (CE-750) to the list of aircraft approved under this 

exemption. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of and amendment to the exemption 

would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to 

CitationShares. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9837, as 

amended remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the revised conditions and 

limitations. 

 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Provisions of this exemption apply to Citation CJ3 (CE-525B), Citation Bravo (CE-550B), 

 Citation Excel/XLS (CE-560XL), Citation Sovereign (CE-680), and Citation X 

 (CE-750) aircraft only. 

2. Crews utilizing this exemption must have been trained and qualified to the standards 

 specified under part 121, subparts N and O. 

3. Airports at which CitationShares intends to utilize the provisions of this exemption must 

 have had approach procedures developed in accordance with U.S. Terminal Instrument 

 Procedures or International Civil Aviation Organization Procedures for Air Navigation 

 Services criteria. 

 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9837, as amended, to 

March 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9837. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John M Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service
---

EXHIBIT 13.A



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Petaquilla Minerals Ltd. (the Company) on amended Form 20-F for the 15 months ended April 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard Fifer, President and Chief Executive 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, that to the best of my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Richard Fifer

Richard Fifer

(principal executive officer)



Dated:  August 1, 2008





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



---
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 three month period ended  September 29, 2002 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  the  undersigned  certify,  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.



                                           /s/ Richard M. Frank
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Richard M. Frank
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           November 12, 2002


                                           /s/ Rodney Carter
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Rodney Carter
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           November 12, 2002
39139.

39140.

#### RUSS TRANSPORT, INC. v. JONES. REAGAN v. JONES.

*613Decided October 11, 1961.

*Murphy .& Murphy, Thomas B. Murphy, Bichard C. Freeman,*for plaintiffs in error.

*B. B. Jones, Jr., Howe & Murphy, Harold L. Murphy,*contra.

Eberhakdt, Judge.

*Code*§ 3-607 provides that: “A former recovery, or the pendency of a former suit for the same cause of action, between the same parties, in the same or any other court that has jurisdiction, shall be a good cause of abatement . . .” *Code*§ 110-501 provides: “A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue, or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein *614the judgment was rendered, until such judgment shall be reversed or set aside.” That these sections of the Code are applicable in tort cases, such as we here deal with, is1 made clear by *Code*§ 105-1805: “Former recovery and the pendency of another suit are also good defenses and subject to the same rules as when applied to contracts.”

An examination of the allegations in the petition here and those in the cross-bill of Mrs. Irma Lee Jones in the Federal court case leaves no doubt that they are predicated upon the same identical collision in which Mrs. Jones is alleged to have received injuries and that the recovery sought in each instance was for the same acts of alleged negligence against the defendant, V. L. Reagan, who was the servant and operator of the vehicle of defendant Russ Transport, Inc. A final judgment has been rendered in the cross-bill which absolves both Russ Transport, Inc. and Y. L. Reagan of all liability to Mrs. Irma Lee Jones.

It is conceded by the defendants that the parties here are not identical with those in the Federal court case, for in that case plaintiff’s wife was a party but he was not, while here he is a party and his wife is not. Thus, the only question is whether the husband here is a privy of his wife, within the meaning of *Code*§ 110-501. If so, the plea is good, but if not it is bad, for there is no bar unless the former action was between the same parties or their privies.

Whatever may be the rule in other jurisdictions, it is settled here that where both the husband and wife are still in life that relationship alone does not make them privies within the meaning of this Code section. *Blakewood v. Yellow Cab Co. of Savannah,*61 Ga. App. 149 (6 SE2d 126). There is no allegation in the petition here that plaintiff’s wife is dead. On the contrary it is affirmatively alleged that “s'he is unable to sleep well,” that she “will continue to suffer” and that she “is unable to perform her duties as a wife.” See also *Commercial Credit Corp. v. C. & S. Nat. Bank,*68 Ga. App. 393, 394 (23 SE2d 198); *Harris v. Jacksonville Paper Co.,*67 Ga. App. 759, 765 (21 SE2d 537); *Stanley v. Laurens County Bd. of Ed.,*188 Ga. 581 (2) (4 SE2d 164).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Nichols, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7713 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7713

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress the annual performance plans for 
          Department of Veterans Affairs political appointees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2024

 Mr. Bergman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress the annual performance plans for 
          Department of Veterans Affairs political appointees.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``VA Political Performance Disclosure 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLANS FOR 
              DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS POLITICAL APPOINTEES.

    Section 725 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
        subsection (c):
    ``(c) Submission to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after the 
date of the completion of an annual performance under subsection (a), 
the Secretary shall submit the plan to the Committees on Veterans' 
Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 582.5017 Aspartic acid. ( a ) *Product.* Aspartic acid (L- and DL-forms).
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

   INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' AWARENESS LETTER


   February 10, 1999


   Essef Corporation and Subsidiaries
   220 Park Drive
   Chardon, Ohio


   We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
   American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim
   financial information of Essef Corporation and Subsidiaries for the periods
   ended December 31, 1998 and 1997, as indicated in our report dated January
   25, 1999; because we did not do an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
   information.

   We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
   Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 1998, is
   incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-17758 on Form S-8.

   We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
   under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the
   Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report
   prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and
   11 of that Act.






   DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

   Cleveland, Ohio
§ 74.1705 FD&C Yellow No. 5. ( a ) *Identity and specifications.* ( 1 ) The color additive FD&C Yellow No. 5 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 74.705 (a)(1) and (b).
( 2 ) FD&C Yellow No. 5 Aluminum Lake shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of § 82.51 of this chapter.
( 3 ) Color additive mixtures for drug use made with FD&C Yellow No. 5 may contain only those diluents that are suitable and are listed in part 73 of this chapter as safe for use in color additive mixtures for coloring drugs.
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* ( 1 ) FD&C Yellow No. 5 may be safely used for coloring drugs generally, including drugs intended for use in the area of the eye, in amounts consistent with current good manufacturing practice.
( 2 ) FD&C Yellow No. 5 Aluminum Lake may be safely used for coloring drugs intended for use in the area of the eye, when prepared in accordance with § 82.51 of this chapter.
( c ) *Labeling requirements.* ( 1 ) The label of the color additive and any mixtures intended solely or in part for coloring purposes prepared therefrom shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( 2 ) The label of OTC and prescription drug products intended for human use administered orally, nasally, rectally, or vaginally, or for use in the area of the eye, containing FD&C Yellow No. 5 shall specifically declare the presence of FD&C Yellow No. 5 by listing the color additive using the names FD&C Yellow No. 5 and tartrazine. The label shall bear a statement such as “Contains FD&C Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine) as a color additive” or “Contains color additives including FD&C Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine).” The labels of certain drug products subject to this labeling requirement that are also cosmetics, such as: antibacterial mouthwashes and fluoride toothpastes, need not comply with this requirement provided they comply with the requirements of § 701.3 of this chapter.
( 3 ) For prescription drugs for human use containing FD&C Yellow No. 5 that are administered orally, nasally, vaginally, or rectally, or for use in the area of the eye, the labeling required by § 201.100(d) of this chapter shall, in addition to the label statement required under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, bear the warning statement “This product contains FD&C Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine) which may cause allergic-type reactions (including bronchial asthma) in certain susceptible persons. Although the overall incidence of FD&C Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine) sensitivity in the general population is low, it is frequently seen in patients who also have aspirin hypersensitivity.” This warning statement shall appear in the “Precautions” section of the labeling.
( d ) *Certification.* All batches of FD&C Yellow No. 5 shall be certified in accordance with regulations in part 80 of this chapter.
[42 FR 15654, Mar. 22, 1977, as amended at 44 FR 37220, June 26, 1979; 50 FR 35782, Sept. 4, 1985; 51 FR 24519, July 7, 1986; 59 FR 60897, Nov. 29, 1994]
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 

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

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 of Crimson Exploration Inc. (the “Issuer”).  The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

 

| Date:

  | November 14, 2007

              |   |
|---------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|          | /s/ Allan D. Keel                     |   |
| Name:         | Allan D. Keel                         |   |
| Title:        | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|          |                                  |   |
|          |                                  |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Issuer and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
# C_2014151EN.01001402.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 March 2014 — Itales ООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

(Case C-123/14)

2014/C 151/18

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Itales ООD

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of the Council and of the European Parliament of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted so that, where goods are sold to a third party, a right to deduct input tax arises by virtue of their purchase, even if there is no proof that the previous supplier possessed goods of the same kind? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of the Council and of the European Parliament of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted so that, where goods are sold to a third party, a right to deduct input tax arises by virtue of their purchase, even if there is no proof that the previous supplier possessed goods of the same kind?

1

| 2. | Is the administrative practice of the Natsionalna Agentsia po prihodite (National Income Tax Agency), according to which persons liable to VAT within the meaning of the Zakon za danan varhu dobaveneta stoynost (VAT law) are denied the right to deduct input tax in cases where there is no proof of the origin of the goods, without suspicion of involvement in tax fraud having being expressed and/or objective evidence provided by the tax authorities which would indicate that the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with tax fraud? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the administrative practice of the Natsionalna Agentsia po prihodite (National Income Tax Agency), according to which persons liable to VAT within the meaning of the Zakon za danan varhu dobaveneta stoynost (VAT law) are denied the right to deduct input tax in cases where there is no proof of the origin of the goods, without suspicion of involvement in tax fraud having being expressed and/or objective evidence provided by the tax authorities which would indicate that the taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with tax fraud?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                33,849
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        172,474
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      33,849
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       206,323
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    582
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                             122,146
<OTHER-SE>                            83,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         206,323
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      (426)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                             426
<EPS-BASIC>                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0



</TABLE>