alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 48 (Friday, March 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5015]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5375-N-09]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

DATES: Effective Date: March 12, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: March 4, 2010.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. 2010-5015 Filed 3-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
# C_2014061EN.01001902.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/19

---

Action brought on 7 January 2014 — NCG Banco v Commission

(Case T-24/14)

2014/C 61/35

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: NCG Banco, SA (Corunna, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

---
# C_2014135EN.01005202.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/52

---

Action brought on 11 February 2014 — Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO)

(Case T-96/14)

2014/C 135/67

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vimeo LLC (New York, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter and M. Macdonald, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PT Comunicações, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2013 given in Case R 1092/2013-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2013 given in Case R 1092/2013-2;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VIMEO’ for services in Classes 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 843 061

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘meo’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
#### § 822.37 Under what circumstances would you inspect records identifying subjects?

We can inspect and copy records identifying subjects under the same circumstances that we can inspect any records relating to postmarket surveillance. We are likely to be interested in such records if we have reason to believe that required reports have not been submitted, or are incomplete, inaccurate, false, or misleading.
# C_2014253EN.01005501.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/55

---

Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Grup Maritim TCB v Commission

(Case T-416/14)

2014/C 253/72

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grup Maritim TCB, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.

---
(logo)****CURCIO

+COHEN

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Managing Member

Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC

New York, NY

 

 

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessmentof 2016 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC with Regulation ABServicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Park BridgeLender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicingcriteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31,2016, excluding those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A) within Exhibit Bto Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report are onlythose transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor oroperating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the“Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. ReferenceExhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by thisexamination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinionon management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selectedsample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whetherthe Company performed those selected activities in compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures werelimited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report. Our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may haveoccurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected theCompany’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’sReport with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A toManagement’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, forthe Platform, is fairly stated in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Curcio & Cohen,CPA’s, P.C.

 

 

New York, NY

February 2, 2017

 

 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTSPC 7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001

TEL: 212 557-9800  FAX:212 557 9819   WEBSITE: WWW.CWCCPAFIRM.COM
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.4780 Intranasal splint. ( a ) *Identification.* An intranasal splint is intended to minimize bleeding and edema and to prevent adhesions between the septum and the nasal cavity. It is placed in the nasal cavity after surgery or trauma. The intranasal splint is constructed from plastic, silicone, or absorbent material.
( 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 the limitations in § 874.9.
[64 FR 10949, Mar. 8, 1999]
§ 884.2685 Fetal scalp clip electrode and applicator. ( a ) *Identification.* A fetal scalp clip electrode and applicator is a device designed to establish electrical contact between fetal skin and an external monitoring device by means of pinching skin tissue with a nonreusable clip. This device is used to obtain a fetal electrocardiogram. This generic type of device may include a clip electrode applicator.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before December 26, 1996 for any fetal scalp clip electrode and applicator that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before December 26, 1996 been found to be substantially equivalent to a fetal scalp clip electrode and applicator that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other fetal scalp clip electrode and applicator shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 17741, May 11, 1987; 61 FR 50708, Sept. 27, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.4620 Fiber optic dental light. ( a ) *Identification.* A fiber optic dental light is a device that is a light, usually AC-powered, that consists of glass or plastic fibers which have special optical properties. The device is usually attached to a dental handpiece and is intended to illuminate a patient's oral structures.
( 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 the limitations in § 872.9.
[55 FR 48439, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63008, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38799, July 25, 2001]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000814576
<NAME>                        PAINEWEBBER R&D PARTNERS II, L.P.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             6,998
<SECURITIES>                                   3,298,233
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,700,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,005,231
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,005,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            103,342
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,901,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,005,231
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,063,761
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  58,188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,005,573
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,005,573
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0



</TABLE>
# C_2015381EN.01006004.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/60

---

Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council

(Case T-603/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 381/82)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

1

---
# C_2015337EN.01001201.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/12

---

Order of the General Court of 5 August 2015 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Wattline (WATTLINE)

(Case T-46/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 337/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sales & Solutions GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Wattline GmbH (Ruderting, Germany) (represented by: C. Flisek, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2013 (Case R 1668/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sales & Solutions GmbH and Wattline GmbH

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Sales & Solutions GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sales & Solutions GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.

1

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7985 

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to submit 

to Congress a report on the entrepreneurial challenges facing entrepreneurs with a disability, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2024 

Mr. MCGARVEY (for himself and Mr. MOLINARO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to submit to Congress a report on the entrepreneurial challenges facing entrepreneurs with a disability, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Entrepreneurs with 

5 Disabilities Reporting Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7985 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP CHALLENGES OF 

2 ENTREPRENEURS WITH DISABILITIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

4 date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 

5 the Small Business Administration shall submit to Con6 gress a report on the challenges that entrepreneurs with 

7 a disability encounter with starting and operating a busi8 ness, including— 

9 (1) an assessment of the challenges and needs 

10 of entrepreneurs with a disability; 

11 (2) a description of the resources and support 

12 that the Small Business Administration provides to 

13 entrepreneurs with a disability; 

14 (3) a description of outreach to entrepreneurs 

15 with a disability by the Small Business Administra16 tion, including by district and regional offices of the 

17 Small Business Administration, small business devel18 opment centers (as defined in section 3(t) of the 

19 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(t))), and wom20 en’s business centers (as defined in section 29(a) of 

21 such Act (15 U.S.C. 656(a))); 

22 (4) a description of any joint efforts between of23 fices of the Small Business Administration or the 

24 Small Business Administration and other Federal 

25 agencies to advance the goal of supporting the eco26 nomic success of entrepreneurs with a disability; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7985 IH

1 (5) any deficiencies in the resources and sup2 port described under paragraph (2); 

3 (6) a description of the use of, and access to, 

4 resources of the Administration by entrepreneurs 

5 with a disability; and 

6 (7) any recommendations for legislative actions 

7 that are necessary to address the challenges or needs 

8 of entrepreneurs with a disability that are identified 

9 in the report. 

10 (b) COMPLIANCE WITH CUTGO.—No additional 

11 amounts are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

12 this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
§ 884.4340 Fetal vacuum extractor. ( a ) *Identification.* A fetal vacuum extractor is a device used to facilitate delivery. The device enables traction to be applied to the fetal head (in the birth canal) by means of a suction cup attached to the scalp and is powered by an external vacuum source. This generic type of device may include the cup, hosing, vacuum source, and vacuum control.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3520 OTC denture cleanser. ( a ) *Identification.* An OTC denture cleanser is a device that consists of material in the form of a powder, tablet, or paste that is intended to remove debris from removable prosthetic dental appliances, such as bridges or dentures. The dental appliance is removed from the patient's mouth when the appliance is cleaned.
( 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 the limitations in § 872.9.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 59 FR 63008, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38798, July 25, 2001]