alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Preliminary surficial geologic map of the Newberry Springs 30' x 60' quadrangle, California

By: G. A. PhelpsD. R. BedfordD. J. LidkeD. M. Miller**K. M. Schmidt**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20111044

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Ofr 2011**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# C_2016364EN.01005301.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/53

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Poniskaitis v Commission

(Case F-133/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))

(2016/C 364/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jonas Poniskaitis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the EU Pension scheme which applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015, p. 50.

---
#### § 558.360 Morantel.

(a) *Specifications.* Each pound of Type A medicated article contains 88 grams morantel tartrate.

(b) *Sponsor.* See No. 066104 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

(c) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.425 of this chapter.

(d) *Special considerations.*

(1) Do not use in Type B or Type C medicated feeds containing bentonite.

(2) Consult your veterinarian before using in severely debilitated animals and for assistance in the diagnosis, treatment, and control of parasitism.

(e) *Conditions of use.* It is used in feed as follows:

| Morantel tartrate in grams/ton | Indications for use | Limitations | Sponsor |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (1) 0.44 to 4.4 grams of morantel tartrate per pound of feed | Cattle: For removal and control of mature gastrointestinal nematode infections of cattle including stomach worms (*Haemonchus* spp., *Ostertagia* spp., *Trichostrongylus* spp.), worms of the small intestine (*Cooperia* spp., *Trichostrongylus* spp., *Nematodirus* spp.), and worms of the large intestine (*Oesophagostomum radiatum*) | Feed as a single therapeutic treatment at 0.44 gram of morantel tartrate per 100 pounds of body weight. Fresh water should be available at all times. When medicated feed is consumed, resume normal feeding. Conditions of constant worm exposure may require retreatment in 2 to 4 weeks. Do not treat cattle within 14 days of slaughter | 066104 |
| (2) 0.44 to 4.4 grams of morantel tartrate per pound of feed | Goats: For removal and control of mature gastrointestinal nematode infections of goats including *Haemonchus contortus, Ostertagia (Teladorsagia) circumcincta,* and *Trichostrongylus axei* | Feed as a single therapeutic treatment at 0.44 gram of morantel tartrate per 100 pounds of body weight. Fresh water should be available at all times. When medicated feed is consumed, resume normal feeding. Conditions of constant worm exposure may require retreatment in 2 to 4 weeks. Do not treat goats within 30 days of slaughter | 066104 |

[84 FR 39185, Aug. 9, 2019]
# C_2016222EN.01001502.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — August Storck v EUIPO (Representation of a white and blue square-shaped packaging)

(Case T-806/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing white and blue square-shaped packaging - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 222/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr, T. Melchert and A.-C. Richter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: V. Melgar and H. Kunz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 September 2014 (Case R 644/2014-5), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of a figurative mark representing white and blue square-shaped packaging.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
                                                                    ------------

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF VISIO CORPORATION


ENTITY                                          JURISDICTION               
------                                          ------------               

Visio International Incorporated                Washington
MarComp, Inc.                                   Maryland                   
Kaspia Systems, Inc.                            Delaware                   
Visio Australia Pty. Limited                    Australia                  
Visio Canada Inc.                               Canada                     
Visio S.a.r.l                                   France                     
Visio GmbH                                      Germany                    
Visio International Limited                     Ireland                    
Visio S.r.l.                                    Italy                      
Visio Japan K.K.                                Japan                      
Visio Korea Ltd.                                Korea                      
Visio International Inc.                        Malaysia                   
Visio Business Graphics B.V.                    Netherlands                
Visio Singapore Pte. Ltd.                       Singapore                  
Visio Business Graphics (Proprietary) Limited   South Africa               
Visio Business Graphics GmbH                    Switzerland                
Visio International (UK) Ltd.                   United Kingdom
# L_2019234EN.01003106.xml

| 11.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 234/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 234/31

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 132 of 20 May 2019
  )

On page 38, the Annex, entry 36, column ‘Name’:

for:

‘Nizar (
  Image 1
  ) al-Asaad (
  Image 2
  ) (a.k.a. Nizar Asaad)’,

read:

‘Nizar (
  Image 3
  ) Al-Assad (
  Image 4
  ) (a.k.a. Al-Asad; Assad; Asad)’.

---
FC Robotics, Inc. Consultants

6400 N.W. 6th Way, Suite 147D (954)567-8942 – Office/Fax

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 www.fcrobotics.com

February 17, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application to Amend

Section 333 Exemption No. 12728

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-2520

Dear Sir(s)/Madam(s):

By letter from the FAA dated September 2, 2015, an exemption was granted to FC Robotics, Inc., for 

relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 12728, Regulatory Docket 

No. FAA-2015-2520.

FC Robotics, Inc. hereby requests that the exemption granted be amended to include DJI Phantom 3 and 

DJI Inspire 1. Relevant facts and reasoning include:

 DJI Phantom 3 is part of DJI’s family of consumer grade, mission-proven multirotor UAs. The 

DJI Phantom 3 is a closed platform system UAS using the flight control of the Original Electronic 

Manufacturer(OEM) Radio Controller(RC) transmitter category built with DJI factory 

components.

 DJI Inspire 1 is part of DJI’s family of consumer grade, mission-proven multirotor UAs. The DJI 

Inspire 1 is a closed platform system UAS using the flight control of the Original Electronic 

Manufacturer(OEM) Radio Controller(RC) transmitter category built with DJI factory 

components.

 The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in FAA’s Exemption No. 12728 apply without 

modification to this application to include DJI Phantom 3 and DJI Inspire 1 in Exemption No. 12728.

Thank you for your consideration of this amendment request. Please advise us of any additional 

information that may be required.

Sincerely,

Joel W. Israel

President
# C_2016222EN.01004302.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/43

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Chatel v Council

(Case F-91/14) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, before entering the service of the European Union, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU’s pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years, accepted by the applicant, based on new General Implementing Provisions - Concept of measure adversely affecting a person - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of procedure))

(2016/C 222/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Zlata Chatel (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and, finally, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 421 of 24/11/2014, p. 63.

---
Swanson, Brian (OST) . From: Sent:.· To: Frances Fouch <francesfouch@hotmail.com> • · Frfday, August 17, 2012 11:09 AM Swanson, Brian (OST) 

# QO'f

# osr-2..po4-t't'l\t,
Subject: RE: Docket Number DOT-OST-2004-19916 & Air Services to Visalia, CA Docket Management Facility US Department ofTr;msportation 1200 New Jersey SERoom W12-140 Washington, DC 20590-0001 . ...J
Dear Sir, This letter is to let you know that I support continuance ofEssential Air Services at Visalia, Ca. and that my preferred carrier is Great Lakes Airline. It allows my grandfather in Arizona to come to visit family in Visalia, CA.
Thank you, Frances Fouch P.O. Box 668 Goleta, CA 93116

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   informaion   extracted  from  the
Consolidated  Balance Sheets and Consolidated Income Statements and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,073
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  31,007
<ALLOWANCES>                                   447
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 45,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        26,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          250
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   45,081
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,917
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               374
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               110
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,294
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                597
<INCOME-TAX>                                   208
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            389
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   389
<EPS-BASIC>                                    2.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  2.22




</TABLE>
38614.

#### RUTHERFORD *et al.*v. TIDWELL.

Jordan, Judge.

“Where delay of the clerk of the trial court to prepare and certify a transcript of the record within the time prescribed by statute is not caused by his own laches, but by the active interposition of counsel for the plaintiff in error. . . . the writ of error will be dismissed. *Farrar v. Oglesby,*
      *55884 Ga. 188 (11 S. E. 133).” *Black v. Columbia Phonograph Co., 52*Ga. App. 48 (182 S. E. 73). See Article 6, Section *2,*Paragraph 5 of the Constitution of 1945 *(Code Ann.*§ 2-3705); *Butler v. Rich’s Inc.,*81 Ga. App. 20 (57 S. E. 2d 710).

Decided April 5, 1961

Rehearing denied April 25, 1961.

*M. W. Eason, Weldon C. Boyd,*for plaintiffs in error.

*J. Max Cheney,*contra.

The record discloses that the bill of exceptions in the instant case was filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court on September 13, 1960, after having been certified by the court on September 12, I960; yet the transcript of record was not certified and transmitted to this court until October 14, 1960, a date more than 20 days after the filing of the bill of exceptions with the clerk of the trial court. *Code Ann.*§ 6-1001.

Accordingly, since the clerk of the trial court has certified to this court in a supplemental certificate, which was forwarded to this court with the transcript of record, that, “The bill of exceptions in this case was filed on September 13th, 1960. All of the other records in this case were checked out of this office to- the attorney for plaintiff in error, and were not returned to this office until- after two demands, and then the records were returned on October 8th, 1960. Whereupon this is the reason why the transcript in this case has not been forward sooner. This 14th, October, 1960,” the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the writ of error must be granted and the writ of error dismissed. See *Fellows v. Guthrie,*214 Ga. 195, 198 (104 S. E. 2d 205).

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Townsend, P- J., Frankum and Car-lisle, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 99.1

THE  FOLLOWING  CERTIFICATION  ACCOMPANIES  THE ISSUER'S  ANNUAL  REPORT ON FORM
10-KSB AND IS NOT FILED, AS PROVIDED IN SEC RELEASE NOS.  33-8212,  34-47551 AND
IC-25967, DATED MARCH 21, 2003.

                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  BrandPartners  Group,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.

                                 By: /s/ Edward T. Stolarski
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                         Edward T. Stolarski
                                         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

                                         March 31, 2003

A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS  WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THE ISSUER AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE ISSUER AND  FURNISHED  TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 11

- 00 122

- CR

______________________________

VINSON LARRY BRUCE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd Judicial District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09F0385

- 102

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Mo rriss2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Vinson Larry Bruce has filed pro se a notice of appeal from his conviction of aggravated

robbery. On our review of the clerk’s record, we noted that the trial court’s certification of right

of appeal stated that this was a plea agreement case and that B ruce has no right of appeal.

Unless a certification, showing that a defendant has the right of appeal, is in the record, we

must dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d).

Because the trial court’s certification affirmatively shows B ruce has no right of appeal, and

because the record before us does not reflect that the ce rtification is incorrect, see Dears v. State

,

154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), we must dismiss the appeal.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: July 18, 2011

Date Decided: July 19, 2011

Do Not Publish
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06453**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 06453\06453_Checklist_110410_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 06453\06453_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 06453\06453_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 06453\06453_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06453\06453_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06453\06453_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 06453\Certification Statement_06543.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 06453\Supporting Documentation\06453_Stanton MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06453\Supporting Documentation\06453_Stanton Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
# C_2016287EN.01002201.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/22

---

Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Marcuccio v European Union

(Case T-409/14) (1)

1

((Action for damages - Applicant having ceased to respond to the requests from the General Court - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 287/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially A. Placco, then J. Inghelram, P. Giusta and L. Tonini Alabiso, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking to obtain compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the duration of the proceedings in Cases T-236/02, C-59/06 P and C-617/11 P.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility giving rise to the order of 9 January 2015 in Marcuccio v European Union (T-409/14, not published, EU:T:2015:18). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility giving rise to the order of 9 January 2015 in Marcuccio v European Union (T-409/14, not published, EU:T:2015:18).

| 3. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union as to the remainder.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

1

---