alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2014-0750

 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM147AD

601R-71-034, Rev A --- 4/28/14

601R-71-034 --- 3/31/14

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          75,043
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  608,272
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               699,515
<PP&E>                                       6,823,810
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,119,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,591,238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,595,155
<BONDS>                                      3,282,288
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    24,814,536
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,591,238
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,095,694
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  944,309
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             205,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,275,272)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this  Registration  Statement  of PSEG Energy  Holdings
Inc.  on  Form  S-4 of our  report  dated  August  16,  1999  appearing  in this
Prospectus, which is a part of this Registration Statement, and to the reference
to us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
January 28, 2000
# C_2016007EN.01002701.xml

| 11.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CHARLOTTE)

(Case T-659/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark PORT CHARLOTTE - Earlier designations of origin ‘porto’ and ‘port’ - Grounds for invalidity - Article 52(1)(a), Article 53(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 118m(2) of Regulation (EC) No 491/2009))

(2016/C 007/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (Peso de Régua, Portugal) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Argyll, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Harvard Duclos, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP and Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP and Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 July 2014 (Case R 946/2013-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP and Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| 4. | Orders Bruichladdich Distillery to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Bruichladdich Distillery to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.

1

---
# C_2015213EN.01003401.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2015 — Swatch v OHIM — Panavision Europe (SWATCHBALL)

(Case T-71/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SWATCHBALL - Community word and figurative marks and international word and figurative marks SWATCH and swatch - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 213/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Panavision Europe Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2013 (Case R 470/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Swatch AG and Panavision Europe Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Swatch AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Swatch AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.

1

---
TACO CABANA, INC.                                            EXHIBIT 11
Information Supporting                                                 
Per Share Computations                                                 
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                               Years Ended              
                                 ---------------------------------------- 
                                 January 1,    December 31,    December 29,
                                    1995           1995         1996
                                                                  
Net income (loss)               $8,520,000     $(3,798,000)     $  704,000
                                                                       
Net income (loss) per share                                            
computation:
Average common shares                                                  
  outstanding                   15,323,480      15,648,624      15,694,757
Common stock equivalents -
  dilutive options                 320,097               -               -
                                ----------      ----------      ----------     
Average outstanding common                                             
  and common equivalent                                             
  shares                        15,643,577      15,648,624      15,694,757
                                ==========      ==========      ==========
                                          
                                                                       
Net income (loss) per share    $      0.54     $     (0.24)    $      0.04
                                ==========      ==========      ==========
# Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

I, Brian F. Lavin, certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

To
the best of my knowledge and belief, the quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2003, by NTS-Properties VII, Ltd. (the
Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Periodic Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of NTS-Properties VII, Ltd.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
NTS-Properties VII, Ltd. and will be retained by NTS-Properties VII, Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Brian F. Lavin
President of NTS Capital Corporation,
General Partner of NTS-Properties Associates VII,
General Partner of NTS-Properties VII, Ltd.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03584

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF MACKIE DESIGNS INC.
                             AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                      State of Incorporation or Country
Subsidiary                                            in which Organized
--------------------------------------------------    ------------------------------------
<S>                                                   <C>

Mackie Sales Corporation                              Barbados
Mackie Designs Manufacturing Inc.                     Washington
Mackie Designs (Netherlands) B.V.                     The Netherlands
Mackie Designs (Italy) S.r.l.                         Italy
Novac S.r.l.                                          Italy
Radio Cine Forniture (RCF) S.p.A.                     Italy
AVM S.r.l.                                            Italy
RCF Artesuono S.r.l.                                  Italy
Elettronica International S.r.l.                      Italy
RCF France S.A.                                       France
RCF Electronics (U.K.) Ltd.                           United Kingdom
RCF North America Inc.                                New Jersey
RCF China Limited                                     China
RCF Deutschland GmbH                                  Germany
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-3075
In Re: WILBUR P. HOLLAR; RUTH CAROL HOLLAR, Debtors.

_________________________ WILBUR P. HOLLAR; RUTH CAROL HOLLAR, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-446-2, BK-93-11389C-7W-B, BK-93-2087W-A) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilbur P. Hollar, Ruth Carol Hollar, Appellants Pro Se. Robert William Metzler, Gary Dexter Gray, Gary R. Allen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order granting judgment for the United States in their adversary proceeding s eeking to set aside as afraudulent transfer the tax sale of a parcel of property and seeking a declaration that their 1989 and 1990 income tax liabilities are dischargeable in bankruptcy. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hollar v. United States , Nos. CA-95-446-2; BK-93-11389C-7W-B; BK-93-2087W-A (M.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 1995). We also deny the motions of the United States for sanctions and to consolidate this appeal with another appeal filed by the Appellants. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Howard *et al. v.*Boone, administratrix.

No. 8742.

February 10, 1932.

Gilbert, J.

The exception is to a judgment of the superior court dismissing a petition for certiorari. The certiorari complains of a judgment of the court of ordinary refusing to set aside a judgment dismissing an administratrix. This court is without jurisdiction; and accordingly the ease is transferred to the Court of Appeals; which has jurisdiction. See *Blount v. Brinson,*172 *Ga.*663 (158 S. E. 527), which involved the same question. *So ordered.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*330
      *Fleming & Fleming*and *Wade H. Watson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*M. G. Barwich*and *J. P. Highsmith,*contra.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Latif M. Nathani, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Preferred Voice, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a. designed such
disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual
report is being prepared;



b. evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); and



c. presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;



5. The registrants other certifying officer
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



6. The
registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of
our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|/s/    LATIF M. NATHANI                                               
|Latif M. Nathani Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



July 14, 2004
§ 520.1802b Piperazine-carbon disulfide complex boluses. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each bolus contains 20 grams of piperazine-carbon disulfide complex.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in horses and ponies* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* For removal of ascarids and small strongyles, 1 bolus (20 grams) per 500 pounds body weight; removal of large strongyles, pinworms, and bots, 1 bolus per 250 pounds body weight.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For removing ascarids (large roundworms, *Parascaris equorum*), large strongyles (*Strongylus* spp.) bots (*Gastrophilus* spp.), small strongyles, and pinworms (*Oxyuris equi*).
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Withhold feed overnight or for 8 to 10 hours. Give water just before and/or after treatment. Resume regular feeding 4 to 6 hours after treatment. Treatment of debilitated or anemic animals is contraindicated. Do not administer to animals that are or were recently affected with colic, diarrhea, or infected with a serious infectious disease. As with most anthelmintics, drastic cathartics or other gastrointestinal irritants should not be administered in conjunction with this drug. Animals in poor condition or heavily parasitized should be given one half the recommended dose and treated again in 2 or 3 weeks. Consult your veterinarian for assistance in the diagnosis, treatment, and control of parasitism.
[45 FR 52782, Aug. 8, 1980, as amended at 78 FR 28826, May 20, 2014]
Editorial Note on Part 860
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 860 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008, and at 86 FR 54846, Oct. 5, 2021.

§ 860.125 Consultation with panels. ( a ) When the Commissioner chooses to refer a reclassification petition to a classification panel for its recommendation under § 860.134(b), or the Commissioner is required to consult with a panel concerning a reclassification petition submitted under § 860.130(d) or received in a proceeding under § 860.133(b), or the Commissioner chooses to consult with a panel with regard to the reclassification of a device initiated by the Commissioner under § 860.134(c) or § 860.136, the Commissioner will distribute a copy of the petition, or its relevant portions, if applicable, to each panel member and will consult with the panel in one of the following ways: ( 1 ) Consultation by telephone with at least a majority of current voting panel members and, when possible, nonvoting panel members in a telephone or video conference call; or
( 2 ) Discussion at a panel meeting.
( b ) The method of consultation chosen by the Commissioner will depend upon the importance and complexity of the subject matter involved and the time available for action. When time and circumstances permit, the Commissioner will consult with a panel through discussion at a panel meeting.
( c ) The Commissioner will consult with a classification panel prior to changing the classification of a device in a proceeding under section 513(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and § 860.130 upon the Commissioner's own initiative or upon petition of an interested person, and in the latter case, the Commissioner will distribute a copy of the petition, or its relevant portions, to each panel member.
( d ) When a petition is submitted under § 860.134 for a postamendments, not substantially equivalent, device, if the Commissioner chooses to consult with the panel, the Commissioner will obtain a recommendation that includes the information described in § 860.84(d). In consulting with a panel about a petition submitted under § 860.130(d), § 860.136(a), or received in a proceeding under § 860.133(b), the Commissioner may or may not obtain a formal recommendation.
[43 FR 32993, July 28, 1978, as amended at 83 FR 64456, Dec. 17, 2018]
# C_2015262EN.01002302.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council

(Case T-95/14) (1)

1

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of power - Right to property - Equal treatment))

(2015/C 262/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.

1

---