alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016038EN.01005301.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/53

---

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo v Commission

(Case T-215/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Replacement of the contested act during proceedings - Amendment of the form of order sought - Parallel action against the new decision - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 038/69)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Gmina Miasto Gdynia (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: T. Koncewicz and K. Gruszecka-Spychała, lawyers) and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. Z o.o. (Gdynia) (represented initially by T. Koncewicz and K. Gruszecka-Spychała, and subsequently by P. Rosiak, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, S. Noë and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicants: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicants:

Re:

Re:

Initially, an application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2014/883/EU of 11 February 2014 on the measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 51), and, subsequently, an application for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1586 of 26 February 2015 on the measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 165) replacing Decision 2014/883.

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. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. Z o.o. as regards the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. Z o.o. as regards the main proceedings.

| 3. | Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Commission as regards the proceedings for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Commission as regards the proceedings for interim relief.

| 4. | The Republic of Poland shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Republic of Poland shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.

1

---
U. S. Department of Homeland Security 

 

 Office for Domestic Preparedness

 

 Washington, D.C. 20531 

ODP Information Bulletin 

No. 120 June 16, 2004 

TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads 

 All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact 

All State Homeland Security Directors 

FROM: C. Suzanne Mencer 

 Director

SUBJECT: Guidance on eligibility of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to receive 

ODP homeland security grant funding 

In response to several inquiries, ODP is providing the following guidance on the eligibility of 

NGOs to receive funding through ODP grant programs. 

NGOs are eligible for ODP grant funding via two options. First, States can fund NGO initiatives 

directly out of the 20% of the total grant award that can be retained at the State level. Second, 

local jurisdictions may support NGOs using the 80% of the grant funds passed through to them

by the State. In both instances, NGOs are considered eligible for ODP funds if their efforts 

support the goals and objectives outlined in relevant homeland security strategies and the State or 

local unit of government determines such funding is appropriate. 

However, States cannot fund NGOs directly and count those sums toward the 80% pass-through 

requirement. According to ODP grant program guidance, States must pass through a minimum 

80% of the grant funds directly to local units of government. For the purposes of these grants, 

the term “local unit of government” includes any of the following: county, city, village, town, 

district, borough, port authority, transit authority, water district, regional planning commission, 

council of government, Indian tribe, authorized tribal organization, Alaska Native village, or 

other political subdivision of any state. As such, NGOs do not qualify as local units of 

government. 

If you have any further questions on NGO eligibility, please contact your ODP Preparedness 

Officer at (800) 368-6498.
#### § 200.15 Definition of term “insulin.”

For purposes of sections 801 and 802 of the act and this title, the term *insulin* means the active principle of the pancreas that affects the metabolism of carbohydrates in the animal body and which is of value in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. The term includes synthetic and biotechnologically derived products that are the same as, or similar to, naturally occurring insulins in structure, use, and intended effect and are of value in the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

[63 FR 26698, May 13, 1998]
<PAGE>   1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-1/A of our
report dated April 16, 1999, except for paragraphs three through seven of Note
13, which are as of June 18, 1999, and paragraph eight of Note 13,
which is as of August 9, 1999, relating to the financial statements of
FreeShop.com, Inc., of our report dated May 6, 1999, relating to the financial
statements of Commonsite LLC, and of our report dated May 24, 1999, relating to
the financial statements of Travel Companions International, Inc. which appear
in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the references to us under
the heading "Experts," in such Registration Statement.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Seattle, Washington
September 1, 1999
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed January 4, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-797

Lower Tribunal No. 22-8708 CC

________________

Karina Jimenez,

Petitioner,

vs.

Martha Gutierrez,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the County Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Diana Gonzalez-Whyte, Judge.

Karina Jimenez, in proper person.

Martha Gutierrez, in proper person.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. 

GORDO, J.
2

We treat Appellant’s appeal of the trial court’s order denying an 

emergency motion to stay a writ of possession as a petition for writ of 

certiorari. See Super Prods., LLC v. Intracoastal Env’t, LLC, 252 So. 3d 329, 

331 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (“Orders staying proceedings are reviewable by 

certiorari.”); see also Bimini Properties, Inc. v. Puff or Sip Hookah Lounge & 

Liquor Store, LLC, 343 So. 3d 1249, 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“In these

circumstances, we exercise our authority under Florida Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.040(c) and treat the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of 

certiorari.”); Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc., 129 So. 3d 1153, 

1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“This Court has certiorari jurisdiction to review a 

trial court’s non-final order denying a motion for stay.”) (quoting Sorena v. 

Gerald J. Tobin, P.A., 47 So. 3d 875, 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)). Finding the 

trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law, we deny the 

petition. 

Denied.
# C_2015398EN.01005401.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/54

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — JP Divver Holding Company v OHIM (EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE)

(Case T-642/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 398/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: JP Divver Holding Company Ltd (Newry, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Franke and E. Bertram, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2014 (Case R 64/2014-2) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders JP Divver Holding Company Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders JP Divver Holding Company Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.

1

---
# C_2014235EN.01003402.xml

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/34

---

Action brought on 6 May 2014 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-41/14)

2014/C 235/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Christophe Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the year 2012 and of the decision to award her one merit point for the year 2012.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested staff report, the decision on merit points and, so far as necessary, the decision on the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested staff report, the decision on merit points and, so far as necessary, the decision on the complaint;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.4230 Cardiopulmonary bypass defoamer. ( a ) *Identification.* A cardiopulmonary bypass defoamer is a device used in conjunction with an oxygenator during cardiopulmonary bypass surgery to remove gas bubbles from the blood.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is the FDA guidance document entitled “Guidance for Extracorporeal Blood Circuit Defoamer 510(k) Submissions.”
[45 FR 7907, Feb. 5, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 17737, May 11, 1987; 66 FR 18542, Apr. 10, 2001]
# C_2015213EN.01003502.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Ferring v OHIM — Kora (Koragel)

(Case T-169/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Koragel - Earlier Community word mark CHORAGON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 213/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kora Corp. Ltd (Swords, Ireland)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2014 (Case No R 721/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Ferring BV and Kora Corp. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ferring BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ferring BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             WEBLINK WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001
                                                     ------------------------------------------------
                                                       NUMBER               PERCENT        EQUIVALENT
                                                     OF SHARES            OUTSTANDING        SHARES
                                                     ----------           -----------      ----------

<S>                                                  <C>                  <C>              <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                               2,300,000             100.00%         2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                            2,508,997             100.00%         2,508,997
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock         15,310,943             100.00%        15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                       11,242,857             100.00%        11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                        4,323,874             100.00%         4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                         6,000,000             100.00%         6,000,000
   1999 Treasury Stock Transaction                       (6,588)            100.00%            (6,588)
   March 2000 Debt Swap                               3,789,715             100.00%         3,789,715
   Canadian Transaction                                 714,286             100.00%           714,286
   Surrender/Cancelation of Stock                      (291,723)             17.29%           (50,441)
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued           190,651             100.00%           190,651
   Warrants Exercised                                   134,737             100.00%           134,737
                                                     ----------                          ------------
                                                     46,217,749                            46,459,031

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                        46,459,031

NET LOSS                                                                                 $(11,777,891)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                       $      (0.25)
                                                                                         ============
</Table>
#### § 56.122 Public disclosure of information regarding revocation.

A determination that the Food and Drug Administration has disqualified an institution and the administrative record regarding that determination are disclosable to the public under part 20.
U.S. Department 

ofT ransportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Adjudication 

September 28,2016 

VIA U.S. MAIL and FAX 

Casey E. Gardner, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

800 Independence Ave., S.W, Rm 323 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Todd Emerson, Esq. 

Sky West Airlines 

444 S. River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

Re: Sky West Airlines, Inc., FDMS Nos. FAA-2013-0292; FAA-2012-0777; FAA-2012-

0868; FAA-2012-0869; FAA-2012-0872; FAA-2012-0873; FAA-2012-0874; 

FAA-2012-0904; FAA-2013-0617; FAA-2013-0619 

Dear Ms. Gardner and Mr. Emerson: 

On September 22, 2016, you filed a fifth joint motion to hold decisions in abeyance pending the 

outcome of settlement negotiations. You explained that "the parties are diligently pursuing 

settlement of these cases" through "continuing and ongoing" discussions. As a result, you 

requested that the Administrator not issue any decisions regarding the referenced cases on appeal 

pending the outcome of these negotiations and further motion by the parties. 

In light of this latest motion, the Administrator will not issue any decisions in these cases for 60 

calendar days from the date of this letter, or until negotiations are concluded, whichever comes 

first.. 

Please continue to update the Hearing Docket Clerk regarding any developments. 

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

§ 862.2500 Enzyme analyzer for clinical use. ( a ) *Identification.* An enzyme analyzer for clinical use is a device intended to measure enzymes in plasma or serum by nonkinetic or kinetic measurement of enzyme-catalyzed reactions. This device is used in conjunction with certain materials to measure a variety of enzymes as an aid in the diagnosis and treatment of certain enzyme-related disorders.
( 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 2309, Jan. 14, 2000]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSBIR Advanced Technologies in Aviation and Air Transportation System 2016This report is intended to provide a broad knowledge of various topics associated with NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD), with particular interest on the NASA SBIR contracts awarded from 2011-2012 executed by small companies. The content of this report focuses on the high-quality, cutting-edge research that will lead to revolutionary concepts, technologies, and capabilities that enable radical change to both the airspace system and the aircraft that fly within it, facilitating a safer, more environmentally friendly, and more efficient air transportation system.Document ID20170000398Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsNguyen, Hung D.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Steele, Gynelle C.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Kaszeta, Richard W.*(Creare, Inc. Hanover, NH, United States)*Gold, Calman*(Creare, Inc. Hanover, NH, United States)*Corke, Thomas C.*(Notre Dame Univ. Notre Dame, IN, United States)*McGowan, Ryan*(Notre Dame Univ. Notre Dame, IN, United States)*Matlis, Eric*(Notre Dame Univ. Notre Dame, IN, United States)*Eichenlaub, Jesse*(Dimension Technologies, Inc. Rochester, NY, United States)*Davis, Joshua T.*(ATA Engineering, Inc. San Diego, CA, United States)*Shah, Parthiv N.*(ATA Engineering, Inc. San Diego, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredJanuary 13, 2017Publication DateJanuary 1, 2017Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN35149E-19278NASA/TP-2017-219413Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNX14CL05CCONTRACT_GRANT: NSF-ACI-1314674WBS: WBS 471296.01.03.01CONTRACT_GRANT: NNX14CL15CDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordsTurboelectric Propulsion SystemsUAS Safety Analysis ModelVoice Recognition and Artificial IntelligenceHybrid System TheoryDeployable Engine Air-BrakeAvailable DownloadsNameType20170000398.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Saul Pena

, * From the 7 0th District Court

o f Ector County,

Trial Court No

. A

- 18

- 1605

- CR

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 3

- 00 2 55

- CR * July 18 , 202 4

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter , J

. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
§ 74.1602 D&C Violet No. 2. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive D&C Violet No. 2 is principally 1-hydroxy -4-[(4-methylphenyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione.
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures for use in externally applied drugs made with D&C Violet No. 2 may contain only those diluents that are suitable and that are listed in part 73 of this chapter as safe for use in color additive mixtures for coloring externally applied drugs.
( b ) *Specifications.* D&C Violet No. 2 shall conform to the following specifications and shall be free from impurities, other than those named, to the extent that such other impurities can be avoided by good manufacturing practice: Volatile matter (at 135 °C.), not more than 2.0 percent. Matter insoluble in both carbon tetrachloride and water, not more than 0.5 percent. *p-* Toluidine, not more than 0.2 percent. 1-Hydroxy-9,10-anthracenedione, not more than 0.5 percent. 1,4-Dihydroxy-9,10-anthracenedione, not more than 0.5 percent. Subsidiary colors, not more than 1.0 percent. Lead (as Pb), not more than 20 parts per million. Arsenic (as As), not more than 3 parts per million. Total color, not less than 96.0 percent.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* The color additive D&C Violet No. 2 may be safely used for coloring externally applied drugs in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice.
( d ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive and any mixtures prepared therefrom intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Certification.* All batches of D&C Violet No. 2 shall be certified in accordance with regulations in part 80 of this chapter.
[42 FR 15654, Mar. 22, 1977, as amended at 45 FR 62978, Sept. 23, 1980; 55 FR 18868, May 7, 1990]
#### § 820.186 Quality system record.

Each manufacturer shall maintain a quality system record (QSR). The QSR shall include, or refer to the location of, procedures and the documentation of activities required by this part that are not specific to a particular type of device(s), including, but not limited to, the records required by § 820.20. Each manufacturer shall ensure that the QSR is prepared and approved in accordance with § 820.40.