alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016027EN.01005502.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/55

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-636/14) (1)

1

((Language regime - Vacancy notice for a post of director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union - Language requirements in the module for the online submission of applications - Alleged divergence with the vacancy notice published in the Official Journal - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 027/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, V. Čepaitė and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Vacancy Notice COM/2014/10356 for a post of director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (OJ 2014, C 185 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Republic of Lithuania is ordered to bear its own costs relating to its intervention. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Republic of Lithuania is ordered to bear its own costs relating to its intervention.

---

(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.

1

---
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Office of Science and Technology Policy

# ACTION:

General Notice. Nominations for Interagency Working Group participants.

# SUMMARY:

The Subcommittee on Forensic Science of the National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC's) Committee on Science is now accepting nominations for Interagency Working Group participants. Nominees must be a State, local, or tribal government elected officer (or their designated employee with authority to act on their behalf).

# DATES AND ADDRESSES: 

                        The Subcommittee must receive all nominations for Interagency Working Group participants by 5 p.m. EDT March 12, 2010. Nominations should be submitted via electronic mail (e-mail) to                               ( print page 10846)                            Robin W. Jones, Executive Secretary, at                         *Robin.W.Jones@usdoj.gov.*

Kenneth E. Melson,

Co-Chair, Subcommittee on Forensic Science.

[FR Doc. 2010-4899 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**In the Matter of**

**MICHAEL J. HALPRIN :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No. 2159 Disciplinary Docket No. 3**

**Board File No. C1-14-1043 (United States Bankruptcy Court for the**  **Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 12-3001-ELF)**  **Attorney Registration No. 38373**  **(Philadelphia)**

O R D E R

PER CURIAM:

**AND NOW, this 5 th**  **day of June, 2015, Michael J. Halprin, having been suspended from the practice of law in the United States**  **Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for a period of six and**  **one-half months by Orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District**  **of Pennsylvania dated July 9, 2014, October 15, 2014, November 4, 2014 and Novembe**  **r 10, 2014; the said Michael J. Halprin having been directed on April 22, 2015, to**  **inform this Court of any claim he has that the imposition of the identical or comparabl**  **e discipline in this Commonwealth would be unwarranted and the reasons therefor; and no**  **response having been filed, it is ORDERED that Michael J. Halprin is suspended from the**  **practice of law in this Commonwealth for a period of six and one-half**  **months, retroactive to December 2, 2014, and he shall comply with all the provisions o**  **f Pa.R.D.E. 217.**
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.1491 Pediatric Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis aid. ( a ) *Identification.* A pediatric Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis aid is a prescription device that is intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder in pediatric patients.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use, including an evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value using a reference method of diagnosis and assessment of patient behavioral symptomology.
( 2 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be provided. Software documentation must include a detailed, technical description of the algorithm(s) used to generate device output(s), and a cybersecurity assessment of the impact of threats and vulnerabilities on device functionality and user(s).
( 3 ) Usability assessment must demonstrate that the intended user(s) can safely and correctly use the device.
( 4 ) Labeling must include: ( i ) Instructions for use, including a detailed description of the device, compatibility information, and information to facilitate clinical interpretation of all device outputs; and
( ii ) A summary of any clinical testing conducted to demonstrate how the device functions as an interpretation of patient behavioral symptomology associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The summary must include the following: ( A ) A description of each device output and clinical interpretation;
( B ) Any performance measures, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV);
( C ) A description of how the cutoff values used for categorical classification of diagnoses were determined; and
( D ) Any expected or observed adverse events and complications.
( iii ) A statement that the device is not intended for use as a stand-alone diagnostic.
[87 FR 80445, Dec. 30, 2022]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7780 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit certain retirement 

plans from making investment decisions on the basis of factors other 

than financial risk and return factors. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2024 

Mr. MURPHY (for himself, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Ms. TENNEY, and Ms. 

VAN DUYNE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit 

certain retirement plans from making investment decisions on the basis of factors other than financial risk 

and return factors. 

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 ‘‘Safeguarding Invest5 ment Options for Retirement Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7780 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN RETIREMENT PLANS 

2 FROM MAKING INVESTMENT DECISIONS ON 

3 THE BASIS OF FACTORS OTHER THAN FINAN4 CIAL RISK AND RETURN FACTORS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 401(a) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after para7 graph (39) the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(40) PROHIBITION ON CONSIDERATION OF

9 FACTORS OTHER THAN FINANCIAL RISK AND RE10 TURN FACTORS.—For purposes of this subsection, 

11 the term ‘exclusive benefit’ shall include a require12 ment that the corpus and income of the trust are in13 vested exclusively on the basis of financial risk and 

14 return factors.’’. 

15 (b) APPLICATION TO ANNUITY CONTRACTS.—Section 

16 403(b)(1) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

17 the end of subparagraph (D), by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end 

18 of subparagraph (E), and by inserting after subparagraph 

19 (E) the following new subparagraph: 

20 ‘‘(F) the corpus and income invested pur21 suant to such contract are invested exclusively 

22 on the basis of financial risk and return fac23 tors,’’. 

24 (c) APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENTAL PLANS.—Sec25 tion 457(e) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 

26 the following new paragraph: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 7780 IH

1 ‘‘(19) PROHIBITION ON GOVERNMENTAL PLANS

2 CONSIDERING FACTORS OTHER THAN FINANCIAL

3 RISK AND RETURN FACTORS.—In the case of an em4 ployer described in subsection (e)(1)(A), a plan shall 

5 not be treated as meeting the requirements of this 

6 section unless the corpus and income of the plan are 

7 invested exclusively on the basis of financial risk and 

8 return factors.’’. 

9 (d) ADMINISTRATION BY TREASURY.—Sections 

10 401(a)(40), 403(b)(1)(F), and 457(e)(19) of the Internal 

11 Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by this section) shall 

12 be administered exclusively by the Secretary of the Treas13 ury or the Secretary’s delegate. 

14 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to plan years beginning after the 

16 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Manufacturing Job Losses and the Future of Manufacturing Employment in the United States

              																	United States. Congress. Joint Economic Committee, 1956-					 and 	One Hundred Third Congress, 1993-1995. 						*Manufacturing Job Losses and the Future of Manufacturing Employment in the United States : Hearing Before the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, October 5, 1993*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										October 5, 1993,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/878,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
# C_2017283EN.01003002.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Combaro v Commission

(Case T-752/14) (1)

1

((Customs union - Association Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Latvia - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Reimbursement and remission of import duties - Import of woven linen fabrics from Latvia - Fairness clause - Special situation - Deception or obvious negligence - Commission decision finding that the remission of import duties was not justified))

(2017/C 283/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Combaro SA (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4908 final of 16 July 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request for remission of import duties in the amount of EUR 461 415,62.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 4908 final of 16 July 2014 rejecting Combaro SA’s request for remission of import duties in the amount of EUR 461 415,62; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 4908 final of 16 July 2014 rejecting Combaro SA’s request for remission of import duties in the amount of EUR 461 415,62;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Combaro. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Combaro.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.5925 Soft (hydrophilic) contact lens. ( a ) *Identification.* A soft (hydrophilic) contact lens is a device intended to be worn directly against the cornea and adjacent limbal and scleral areas of the eye to correct vision conditions or act as a therapeutic bandage. The device is made of various polymer materials the main polymer molecules of which absorb or attract a certain volume (percentage) of water.
( b ) *Classification.* ( 1 ) Class II if the device is intended for daily wear only.
( 2 ) Class III if the device is intended for extended wear.
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* As of May 28, 1976, an approval under section 515 of the act is required before a device described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section may be commercially distributed. See § 886.3.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 59 FR 10284, Mar. 4, 1994]
§ 884.5160 Powered breast pump. ( a ) *Identification.* A powered breast pump in an electrically powered suction device used to express milk from the breast.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
EXHIBIT 99

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

      I, E. James  Ferland,  Chief  Executive  Officer of PSEG  Energy  Holdings
L.L.C.  (the  "Company"),  to the  best of my  knowledge,  certify  that (i) the
Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended September 30,
2002 (the "Periodic  Report") fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the  information
contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                              /s/ E. James Ferland
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              E. James Ferland
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              November 1, 2002
# C_2015389EN.01004701.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — Bopp v OHIM (Representation of a green octagonal frame)

(Case T-209/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community mark representing a green octagonal frame - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by: S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2014 (Case R 1276/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a green octagonal frame as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Carsten Bopp to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Carsten Bopp to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

1

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0150. LUIS E. ROJAS v. THE STATE.

LuisE. Rojas, while represented by counsel, was convicted of multiple felonies

in May 2017. That same month, Rojas filed a pro se notice of appeal. Among other

things therein, Rojas states that he wishes to be appointed counsel for purposes of

pursing a direct appeal. 

We thus REMAND this case for the trial court’s consideration of whether

Rojas is entitled to be appointed counsel.

1 Upon entry of the trial court’s ruling, this

case shall be transmitted to this Court and re-docketed on the original notice of

appeal.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 See generally Trauth v. State, 295 Ga. 874, 875-876 (1) (2014) (“[I]t is

beyond question that an indigent has the right to appointed counsel to assist him on

direct appeal; and, an individual desiring an appeal need not, once a responsible state

authority knows of the desire to appeal and knows of the status of indigency,

specifically request appointment of appellate counsel.”) (citations and punctuation

omitted).

October 13, 2017

10/13/2017
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.86    
  


 
 

EXTENSION AGREEMENT    
  


Bank
of America, N.A.,

    as Administrative Agent

Attn: Suzanne Paul

231 South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604 


Ladies
and Gentlemen: 


        The
undersigned hereby agrees to extend, effective April 3, 2002, its Commitment and the Maturity Date under the Credit Agreement dated as of April 3, 2001 among
SOURCECORP, Incorporated, f/k/a F.Y.I. Incorporated, each of the Lenders party thereto, Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and Banc of America Securities LLC, as sole lead arranger and
sole book agent (as the same may be amended or otherwise modified from time to time, the "Credit Agreement") for 364 days to April 2, 2005
pursuant to Section 2.1(d) of the Credit Agreement. Terms defined in the Credit Agreement are used herein as therein defined. 


        This
Extension Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State of Texas. The Extension Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument. 



	 	 	BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
	

 	
 	

Name:	
 	

/s/  STEVEN A. MACKENZIE      

	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Steven A. Mackenzie

	 	 	Title:	 	Vice President






	Agreed and Accepted:
	

SOURCECORP, INCORPORATED, f/k/a

F.Y.I. INCORPORATED
	

By:	
 	

/s/ BARRY EDWARDS

	Name:	 	Barry Edwards

	Title:	 	EVP & CFO

	

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Administrative Agent
	

By:	
 	

/s/ SUZANNE M. PAUL

	Name:	 	Suzanne M. Paul
	Title:	 	Vice President













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.86


EXTENSION AGREEMENT
# C_2015320EN.01002901.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/29

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — CGI Luxembourg and Intrasoft International v Parliament

(Case T-769/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment and for damages - Public service contracts - Development and maintenance of production information systems - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Annulment of the contested decisions - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 320/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: CGI Luxembourg SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg); and Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: B. Simon and L. Darie, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decisions to rank the applicants’ tender second in the cascade for the purposes of awarding the contract in respect of Lot 3, ‘Development and maintenance of production information systems’, in the open call for tenders PE/ITEC/ITS14, ‘External Provision of IT Services’, and to award the first cascading contract in that tendering procedure to another consortium and, secondly, the award of damages.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1)

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2) | The parties shall bear their own costs, including those incurred in connection with the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The parties shall bear their own costs, including those incurred in connection with the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

1

---
1

Site Visit Report 

Alaska Seafood Processing Industry Petition Response 

Lindsay Guzzo 

Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 10 Permits Division 

guzzo.lindsay@epa.gov

206-553-0268 

 Betsy Bicknell 

 Senior Environmental Engineer 

 Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) 

 betsy.bicknell@erg.com

 703-633-1612 

Plant Name Trident Seafoods 

Plant Address Cordova, Alaska 

NPDES Permit # Discharge through Trident Seafoods permit: AKG520493 

Date of Visit Thursday, August 19, 2010 

People Contacted Rick Isaacson PWS Operations Manager

The content of this site visit report has been removed because Trident Seafood claims that 

it is Confidential Business Information.