alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 12051 and # 12052]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1876-DR), dated 02/25/2010. *Incident:*
                         Severe Winter Storm. *Incident Period:*
                         12/24/2009 through 12/25/2009.
 DATES: *Effective Date:*
                         02/25/2010. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/26/2010. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/25/2010.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,  U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/25/2010, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Canadian, Cleveland, Comanche, Cotton, Craig, Delaware, Garvin, Grady, Hughes, Jackson, Jefferson, Kay, Lincoln,  Love,  Mcclain,  Muskogee,  Noble, Nowata, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Ottawa, Payne, Pontotoc, Pottawatomie, Rogers, Sequoyah, Stephens, Tillman, Tulsa. The Interest Rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
3.625Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000For Economic Injury:Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12051B and for economic injury is 12052B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2010-4669 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2019122EN.01003101.xml

| 1.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/31

---

Order of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — British Aggregates v Commission

(Joined Cases T-101/14 and T-610/15) (1)

(2019/C 122/35)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PESTMASTER SERVICES, INC., a

California Corporation, 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND

SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a

Connecticut Corporation, 

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-56294

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-05039-JFWMRW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 8, 2016

Pasadena, California

Before: VANASKIE,** MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JUL 29 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie, United States Circuit Judge for

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3

The district court granted summary judgment to Travelers Casualty and

Surety Company on the ground that Pestmaster’s losses were not covered under its

Crime Policy. Pestmaster appeals this decision, alleging coverage under two

provisions.

First, Pestmaster argues that the transfer of funds from its bank account to

Priority 1’s bank account is covered by the Funds Transfer Fraud provision. The

district court found that this provision “does not cover authorized or valid

electronic transactions . . . even though they are, or may be, associated with a

fraudulent scheme.” We agree that there is no coverage under this clause when the

transfers were expressly authorized.

Second, Pestmaster seeks coverage under the Computer Fraud provision. 

The Policy defines Computer Fraud as “[t]he use of any computer to fraudulently

cause a transfer . . . .” We interpret the phrase “fraudulently cause a transfer” to

require an unauthorized transfer of funds. When Priority 1 transferred funds

pursuant to authorization from Pestmaster, the transfer was not fraudulently

caused. Because computers are used in almost every business transaction, reading

this provision to cover all transfers that involve both a computer and fraud at some

point in the transaction would convert this Crime Policy into a “General Fraud”

Policy. While Travelers could have drafted this language more narrowly, we
Page 3 of 3

believe protection against all fraud is not what was intended by this provision, and

not what Pestmaster could reasonably have expected this provision to cover. 

We accordingly affirm the district court’s decision that no coverage was

afforded under the Computer Fraud provision for any transfers to Priority 1 that

were authorized by Pestmaster. However, we remand to the district court to

determine whether the Computer Fraud provision or the Funds Transfer Fraud

provision covers the allegedly unauthorized transfers on May 23 and 27, 2011,

totaling $11,991.89. Each party to bear their own costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and REMANDED.
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 24.1


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Ambassadors International, Inc. a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), and the undersigned officers and directors of the
Company, individually and in their respective capacities indicated below, hereby
make, constitute and appoint John A. Ueberroth and Jeffrey D. Thomas, or either
of them, its and their true and lawful attorneys with power of substitution, to
execute on behalf of the Company, the Annual Report on Form 10-K, including all
exhibits and any and all amendments thereto; that John A. Ueberroth and Jeffrey
D. Thomas, or either of them, are each granted full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing whatsoever as either may deem necessary
and advisable to the same extent and with the same effect as the undersigned
might or could do personally in their respective capacities.

This Power of Attorney may be signed by the undersigned in as many counterparts
as may be necessary, each of which so signed shall be deemed to be an original,
and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument and
notwithstanding the date of execution shall be deemed to bear the date as set
forth below. Furthermore, facsimile signatures shall be deemed to have the same
effect as original signatures.

Dated as of the 30th day of March, 2000.

<TABLE>
<S>                                                                <C>
/s/      JOHN A. UEBERROTH                                         /s/      JEFFREY D. THOMAS
------------------------------------------------------             ------------------------------------------------
John A. Ueberroth, Director, President and Chief                   Jeffrey D. Thomas, Chief Financial Officer,
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


/s/      PETER V. UEBERROTH                                        /s/      JAMES L. EASTON
------------------------------------------------------             ------------------------------------------------
Peter V. Ueberroth, Chairman of the Board of                       James L. Easton,  Director
Directors


/s/      RAFER L. JOHNSON                                          /s/      JOHN C. SPENCE
------------------------------------------------------             ------------------------------------------------
Rafer L. Johnson,  Director                                        John C. Spence,  Director


/s/      RICHARD D. C. WHILDEN
------------------------------------------------------
Richard D. C. Whilden, Director
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ACRES
GAMING INCORPORATED FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,203,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,944,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (15,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,002,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,225,000
<PP&E>                                       6,222,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,982,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,604,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,163,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,948,000
<COMMON>                                    19,993,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (16,500,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,604,000
<SALES>                                      6,224,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,224,000
<CGS>                                        3,064,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,788,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (53,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                394,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            394,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   394,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .04<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04<F1>
<FN>
<F1>This information has been prepared in accordance with SFAS No. 128.
Basic and diluted EPS have been entered in place of primary and fully
diluted EPS, respectively.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2015320EN.01005103.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/51

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament

(Case T-733/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 320/70)

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and


Rules 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934





I, Dominick Ragone, Chief Financial Officer of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., the general partner of Icahn Enterprises L.P., certify that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Icahn Enterprises L.P. quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 of the registrant:





(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.





/s/  Dominick RagoneDominick RagoneChief Financial Officer of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., the general partner of Icahn Enterprises L.P.





Date: May 4, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         788,458
<SECURITIES>                                   342,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  746,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                    48,000
<INVENTORY>                                    462,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,761,944
<PP&E>                                       2,589,118
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,010,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,417,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          711,606
<BONDS>                                        625,413
<COMMON>                                     1,355,935
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,679,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,417,518
<SALES>                                      3,985,736
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,018,549
<CGS>                                        1,808,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,327,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,017
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                846,397
<INCOME-TAX>                                   327,835
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            518,562
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   518,562
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

7/25/2013

The Honorable Randy C. Huffman

Cabinet Secretary

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

601 57th Street SE 

Charleston, West Virginia 25304

Dear Secretary Huffman:

On July 1, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the 

West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision was submitted to address required 

infrastructure elements of Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) which are necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) in West Virginia. EPA has determined that the submittal is complete for these 

elements, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) action.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Ellen Schmitt, Office 

of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814-5787. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

 Diana Esher, Director

 Air Protection Division 

cc: John A. Benedict, Director, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
# C_2015034EN.01005101.xml

| 2.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/51

---

Action brought on 3 November 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-128/14)

(2015/C 034/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision to impose on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step for a 12-month period.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority, in the person of three Directors General of the Commission, dated 23 December 2013, by which the penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step was imposed on the applicant for a 12-month period, taking effect on 31 December 2013, under Article 9(1)(c) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority, in the person of three Directors General of the Commission, dated 23 December 2013, by which the penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step was imposed on the applicant for a 12-month period, taking effect on 31 December 2013, under Article 9(1)(c) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations;

| — | in so far as necessary, also annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 22 July 2014, by which the applicant’s complaint, dated 21 March 2014, challenging the aforementioned disciplinary sentence of 23 December 2013, was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, also annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 22 July 2014, by which the applicant’s complaint, dated 21 March 2014, challenging the aforementioned disciplinary sentence of 23 December 2013, was rejected;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure, and in particular the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings, such as travel and subsistence expenses and the lawyers’ expenses and fees, under Article 105(c) of those Rules. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure, and in particular the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings, such as travel and subsistence expenses and the lawyers’ expenses and fees, under Article 105(c) of those Rules.

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

§ 862.1177 Cholylglycine test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A cholylglycine test system is a device intended to measure the bile acid cholylglycine in serum. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of liver disorders, such as cirrhosis or obstructive liver disease.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
§ 807.85 Exemption from premarket notification. ( a ) A custom device is exempt from premarket notification requirements of this subpart if the device is within the meaning of section 520(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. ( 1 ) It is intended for use by a patient named in the order of the physician or dentist (or other specially qualified person); or
( 2 ) It is intended solely for use by a physician or dentist (or other specially qualified person) and is not generally available to, or generally used by, other physicians or dentists (or other specially qualified persons).
( b ) A distributor who places a device into commercial distribution for the first time under his own name and a repackager who places his own name on a device and does not change any other labeling or otherwise affect the device shall be exempted from the premarket notification requirements of this subpart if: ( 1 ) The device was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976; or
( 2 ) A premarket notification submission was filed by another person.
[42 FR 42526, Aug. 23, 1977, as amended at 81 FR 70340, Oct. 12, 2016]
#### Dorfman v. Philadelphia Transportation Company et al.

*R. M. Bernstein,*for plaintiff.

*J. B. Leopold*and *J. J. McDevitt, 3rd,*for defendant, Philadelphia Transportation Company.

*381February 14, 1952.

*Swartz, Campbell & Henry,*for defendant,Coulson, etc.

Smith, P. J.,

— This matter comes before the court on defendant Coulson’s petition for discovery under Pa. R. C. P. 4007 and 4009.

The petition asks that plaintiff produce his books and records of his business and earnings and so submit to oral examination. Plaintiff has brought an action in trespass against defendant Coulson and the Philadelphia Transportation Company, claiming, inter alia, damage for loss of earnings and possible impairment of earning capacity. The petition “avers that the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of a small business enterprise, the earnings of which plaintiff is in sole and exclusive possession, and defendant is without access to the nature of plaintiff’s business, the amount of his earnings and the extent of any earnings he may have lost as the result of this accident”.

The Rules of the Court of Common Pleas here involved are rule 4007(6), “subject to the limitations provided by Rule 4011, the Court on petition of any party may allow the taking of depositions orally or by written interrogatories approved by the court of any party or person to discover facts, including the existence and location of tangible things”.

Paragraph 4011, which provides for the limitation of scope of discovery and inspection, states:

No inspection shall be permitted (4); “which is not necessary to prepare the pleadings or prove a prima facie claim or defense of the petitioner.”

The sole question presented is whether discovery here sought is necessary to prove a defense in the trial of the issue. It is the contention of defendant that at the time of trial plaintiff may be cross-examined as to his loss of earning power in the business he conducts. We see no evidence of bad faith in asking for the per*382mission to examine plaintiff and the records and books of his business, or that it will cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, expense, or oppression to plaintiff. The items of damage are a material matter in the claim and the defense of the case. An examination of the books and records and any explanation that plaintiff may make as to their contents before trial will make them more reasonably understandable to defendant and will enable him to prove as a defense the actual loss of earnings from the business than any cross-examination of plaintiff at the time of trial. For this reason we enter the following

*Order*

And now, to wit, February 14, 1952, it is ordered and decreed that plaintiff subject himself and his business books of accounts and records to the defendant so that he may be properly orally interrogated thereon at a time mutually satisfactory to his attorney and the attorney of Richard Coulson.