alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015026EN.01001001.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 4 November 2014 — SC Max Boegl România SRL and Others v RA Aeroportul Oradea and Others

(Case C-488/14)

(2015/C 026/12)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SC Max Boegl România SRL, SC UTI Grup SA, Astaldi SpA, SC Construcții Napoca SA

Applicants:

Defendants: RA Aeroportul Oradea, SC Porr Construct SRL, Teerag-Asdag Aktiengesellschaft, SC Col-Air Trading SRL, AZVI SA, Trameco SA, Iamsat Muntenia SA

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 1(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (1) and Article 1(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (2) , as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts be interpreted as precluding legislation which makes access to review procedures of decisions of contracting authorities subject to an obligation to deposit beforehand a ‘good conduct guarantee’ such as that governed by Articles 271a and 271b of Government Emergency Ordinance No 34/2006?

1

2

3

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

1

(2)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14.

2

(3)  Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).

3

---
#### Albert D. Tramer, Trustee *v.*Shapley Schools, Inc., et al.

King, C. J., Alcorn, House, Thim and Ryan, Js.

Argued December 5

decided December 5, 1968

*Harry Cohen,*for the appellant (named defendant).

*Albert H. Hornig,*with whom was *Romeo G. Petroni,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Robert Fain*and *Richard A. Silver,*filed a brief but did not argue the cause for David Paul, purchaser at the judicial sale.

Per Curiam.

We find no abuse of discretion or error of law. General Statutes § 49-25; *Raymond*v. *Gilman,*111 Conn. 605, 612, 151 A. 248.

There is no error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DAY
INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,433
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                       982
<INVENTORY>                                     16,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,978
<PP&E>                                          51,998
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,709
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,328
<BONDS>                                        152,116
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,733
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,886
<SALES>                                        136,814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,814
<CGS>                                           84,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (219)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   118
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,007
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,007
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,007
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7670 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7670

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the captivity of mink, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2024

  Ms. Mace (for herself, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Tonko, Mr. 
      Gooden of Texas, Ms. Escobar, Mr. Van Drew, and Ms. Dean of 
Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the captivity of mink, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Minks In Narrowly Kept Spaces are 
Superspreaders Act'' or the ``MINKS are Superspreaders Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CAPTIVITY OF MINK.

    The Animal Welfare Act is amended by inserting after section 19 (7 
U.S.C. 2149) the following:

``SEC. 20. PROHIBITION ON CAPTIVITY OF MINK.

    ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no person 
shall transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or 
foreign commerce, or breed or possess, any American mink (Neovison 
vison) raised in captivity for fur production, whether dead or alive, 
or any part, product, or offspring thereof.
    ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to an entity 
described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (E) of section 3(e)(2) of 
the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3372(e)(2)).
    ``(c) Buy-Out of Mink Farms.--
            ``(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
        appropriations, the Secretary shall seek to purchase privately 
        owned mink farms for an amount determined under paragraph (2).
            ``(2) Amount.--In determining an amount to offer a mink 
        farmer to purchase the applicable mink farm pursuant to 
        paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take into account--
                    ``(A) the most recent 3-year average of the number 
                of mink owned by the mink farmer; and
                    ``(B) the infrastructure value of the mink farm.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015007EN.01005401.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/54

---

Action brought on 13 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-109/14)

(2015/C 007/66)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L.M. Ribolzi, 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 a request for the survivor’s pension paid to the divorced wife of a deceased official to be increased.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

ZZ claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | order the Commission to pay ZZ 35 % of the deceased’s survivor’s pension — amounting to EUR 2  857,40 at the time of death — with effect from the date of death, together with any interest accrued on the amounts withdrawn in the meantime; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay ZZ 35 % of the deceased’s survivor’s pension — amounting to EUR 2  857,40 at the time of death — with effect from the date of death, together with any interest accrued on the amounts withdrawn in the meantime;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1780 Urinary calculi (stones) test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A urinary calculi (stones) test system is a device intended for the analysis of urinary calculi. Analysis of urinary calculi is used in the diagnosis and treatment of calculi of the urinary tract.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2308, Jan. 14, 2000]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 11 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk June 11 , 2018

157 467 ( 12 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 15 7467

v COA: 341840

Wayne CC: 17

- 003202

- FC

DARIUS JOVAN JONES

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appellant to file a supplement

to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The supplement submitted on June 4

, 2018, is accepted for filing.
4/13/2011 Page 1 of 26 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-11-0155 Reviewer: Bevington/SS 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 2 of 26 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 3 of 26 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 4 of 26 

 POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Chemical ID: P-11-0155 Assessor: Bevington/SS 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 5 of 26 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-11-0155 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 6 of 26 

 POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Chemical ID: P-11-0155 Assessor: Bevington/SS 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 7 of 26 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-11-0155 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 8 of 26 

 POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Chemical ID: P-11-0155 Assessor: Bevington/SS 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 9 of 26 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-11-0155 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 10 of 26 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-11-0155 

EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 11 of 26 

 POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Chemical ID: P-11-0155 Assessor: Bevington/SS 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 12 of 26 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-11-0155 

EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 13 of 26 

 POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Chemical ID: P-11-0155 Assessor: Bevington/SS 

EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 14 of 26 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-11-0155 

EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 15 of 26 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-11-0155 

EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 16 of 26 

 POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Chemical ID: P-11-0155 Assessor: Bevington/SS 

EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 17 of 26 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-11-0155 

EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 18 of 26 

 POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

Chemical ID: P-11-0155 Assessor: Bevington/SS 

EPA SANITIZED Page 18 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 19 of 26 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-11-0155 

EPA SANITIZED Page 19 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 20 of 26 

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT 

 Chemical ID: P-11-0155 

EPA SANITIZED Page 20 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 21 of 26 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 21 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 22 of 26 

EPA SANITIZED Page 22 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 23 of 26 

EPA SANITIZED Page 23 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 24 of 26 

EPA SANITIZED Page 24 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 25 of 26 

EPA SANITIZED Page 25 of 26
4/13/2011 Page 26 of 26 

EPA SANITIZED Page 26 of 26
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.615 Turmeric oleoresin. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive turmeric oleoresin is the combination of flavor and color principles obtained from turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) by extraction using any one or a combination of the following solvents: Acetone
Ethyl alcohol
Ethylene dichloride
Hexane
Isopropyl alcohol
Methyl alcohol
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
The definition of turmeric oleoresin in this paragraph is for the purpose of identity as a color additive only, and shall not be construed as setting forth an official standard for turmeric oleoresin under section 401 of the act.
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures made with turmeric oleoresin may contain as diluents only those substances listed in this subpart as safe and suitable in color additive mixtures for coloring foods.
( b ) *Specifications.* Turmeric oleoresin shall contain no more residue of the solvents listed under paragraph (a)(1) of this section than is permitted for the corresponding solvents in spice oleoresins under applicable food additive regulation in parts 170 through 189 of this chapter.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* Turmeric oleoresin may be safely used for the coloring of foods generally, in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice, except that it may not be used to color foods for which standards of identity have been promulgated under section 401 of the act, unless the use of added color is authorized by such standards.
( d ) *Labeling.* The color additive and any mixtures intended solely or in part for coloring purposes prepared therefrom shall bear, in addition to the other information required by the act, labeling in accordance with the provisions of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
Interim Status Standards Applicability

49 F'R 46095

November 21, 1984 •

FEDERAL RmU!REMENT

RCRA REVISICN C:-lECKLIST 10

RCRA CITE STATE AUTHORITY

STATV7E I REGCLATION

IF' DIF'F'ERE~ fROM F'EDE~~

REOOIREXE!\1T , EXPLAIN

PART 265 - UITERIM SfANr:ARDS F'OR (fl~T£RS AND OPERATORS OF' TSDF'S

SUBPART A - GENERAL

PURPOSE, SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY

•

•

purpose

persons to wham regs

apply

"

265.1(a)

265.1(b)

!

1173-303-400( 1)

~73-303-400(1 ;&(Z)(a)

xovenbe r 21/ 1984 - ?ar;e 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION 

        Inconnection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Penn TreatyAmerican Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, William W. Hunt, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of myknowledge:
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2



AMENDMENT TO
PRECEDENT AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT TO PRECEDENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of April 17, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) between Spire STL Pipeline LLC (“Pipeline”) and Laclede Gas Company (“Customer”).


WHEREAS, Pipeline and Customer are parties to that certain Precedent Agreement dated as of January 25, 2017 (the “Precedent Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, Pipeline and Customer each now desires to amend the Precedent Agreement by the terms of this Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Pipeline and Customer each agree as follows:


1.Revised Route.  Line 880 is hereby removed from the Project, and is replaced with an approximately six-mile segment of greenfield 24-inch diameter pipeline that will continue the New Pipeline from the Laclede/Lange Delivery Station to an interconnection point with MRT near the MRT Chain of Rocks point (the “North County Extension”).  The North County Extension will be considered part of the New Pipeline.  Neither Pipeline nor Customer will have any further obligations under the Precedent Agreement with respect to Line 880, including the pursuit of any Line 880 Authorizations. 


2.Miscellaneous.  Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment have the meanings assigned to them in the Precedent Agreement.  The recitals of this Amendment are by this reference incorporated into this Amendment.  To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Precedent Agreement, this Amendment controls. Except as hereby amended, the Precedent Agreement remains in full force and effect.  Delivery of electronic copies of any signed original document shall be deemed the same as delivery of an original.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed as of the Effective Date.


	
		
	Spire STL Pipeline LLC




By: /s/ Michael C. Geiselhart
Name:  Michael C. Geiselhart 
Title:  SVP, Strategy and Corporate Development  
	Laclede Gas Company




By:  /s/ Scott E. Woley  
Name:  Scott E. Woley  
Title:  VP, Gas Supply and Operations
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Case number: 01-13-00063-CV

Style: In re Hollandia B.V. a/k/a Bailey Technogroup Steel & 

Cranes, B.V.

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

from Harrison Vinson v. GlobalSantaFe Corp., No. 

2005-34664, in the 152nd District Court of Harris County, 

Texas.

The Court has been informed that a hearing on relator’s special appearance 

is scheduled for February 15, 2013. The stay of the trial of the underlying case is 

extended until further order of this Court. Relator is ordered to inform this Court of 

the result of the February 15 hearing within twenty-four hours of the issuance of 

the trial court’s order on the special appearance.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting individually

Date: January 28, 2013
Certifications by the Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906


EX-32.1


Exhibit 32  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of InZon Corporation (Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dated indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: August 21, 2006By: /s/ David F. LevyDavid F. LevyPresident, Principal Executive Officer 
 Dated: August 21, 2006By: /s/ Richard DeaRichard DeaChief Financial Officer
§ 582.1127 Aluminum ammonium sulfate. ( a ) *Product.* Aluminum ammonium sulfate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Payne, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,734. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Second Division.

May 6, 1969.

Edward M. Genson, of Chicago (Sam Adam, of counsel), for appellant;

John J. Stamos, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James B. Haddad, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

PRESIDING JUSTICE LYONS.

Not to be published in fulL
#### § 573.260 Calcium silicate.

Calcium silicate, including synthetic calcium silicate, may be safely used as an anticaking agent in animal feed, provided that the amount of calcium silicate does not exceed 2 percent.
Exhibit 32.1

  Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned
President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President Law/Finance and
Secretary of Ladish Co., Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on our
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/  Kerry L. Woody
-----------------------------------------------
Kerry L. Woody
President and Chief Executive Officer




/s/  Wayne E. Larsen
------------------------------------------------
Wayne E. Larsen
Vice President Law/Finance & Secretary


October 27, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

# Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned President and Chief Executive
Officer and Vice President Law/Finance and Secretary of Ladish Co., Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                                       | 
|------------------------------------------------------ | 
|/s/  Kerry L. Woody                                    | 
|Kerry L. Woody
President and Chief Executive Officer   | 
|/s/  Wayne E. Larsen                                   | 
|Wayne E. Larsen
Vice President Law/Finance & Secretary | 

May 4, 2004