alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014361EN.01001501.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/15

---

Action brought on 6 August 2014 — Crosfield Italia v ECHA

(Case T-587/14)

2014/C 361/20

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Crosfield Italia Srl (Verona, Italy) (represented by: M. Baldassarri, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul and thereby declare invalid and/or deprived of effect Decision No SME/2013/4672 of 28 May 2014 of the European Chemicals Agency, communicated to the applicant on 9 June 2014, thus rendering inoperative each of the effects of that decision, including the annulment of the invoices issued for the recovery of higher taxes and penalties purportedly owing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision of the European Chemicals Agency that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements for being regarded as a small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), denying the applicant the benefits provided for in that regulation and providing that it is to pay the fees and charges allegedly owing.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-620/13 Marchi Industriale v ECHA.

Marchi Industriale

ECHA

---
### National requirements for improved elevation data

By: Gregory I. SnyderLarry J. SugarbakerAllyson L. JasonDavid F. Maune

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20131237

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report** 
- Appendixes:                               - **Appendix**
  - **Appendix**
  - **Appendix** 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.4270 Cardiopulmonary bypass cardiotomy suction line blood filter. ( a ) *Identification.* A cardiopulmonary bypass cardiotomy suction line blood filter is a device used as part of a gas exchange (oxygenator) system to filter nonbiologic particles and emboli (a blood clot or a piece of foreign material flowing in the bloodstream which will obstruct circulation by blocking a vessel) out of the blood. This device is intended for use in the cardiotomy suction line.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Opinion issued February 25 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 19 - 00624 - CV

——————————— IN RE ALEX EDUARDO LECHIN , Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Alex Eduardo Lechin, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to withdraw its order denying hi s motion to recuse and amended motion to disqualify and to enter an order disqualifying the trial c ourt2

judge. 1 Before our opinion issued, relator filed a motion to dismiss his petition. See In re Livesay , No. 01

- 02

- 01120

- CV, 2003 WL 139729, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 9, 2003, orig. proceeding) (“Ordinarily, we will dismiss an original pr oceeding upon the filing by relator of a motion to dismiss with the clerk of this Court.”) (citing T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)). Ten days have passed without a response. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 10.3(a). Accordingly, we grant relator’s motion and dismiss this original proceeding. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42
. 1 (a) (1) , 43.2(f) ; see also T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a) . We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Lloyd, and Hightower
.

1 The underlying case is In the Matter of the Marriage of Carmen Maria Lechin and Alex Eduardo Lechin , Cause No. 2013

- 42628, pending in the 247th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Janice Berg presiding.
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.3410 External limb orthotic component. ( a ) *Identification.* An external limb orthotic component is a device intended for medical purposes for use in conjunction with an orthosis (brace) to increase the function of the orthosis for a patient's particular needs. Examples of external limb orthotic components include the following: A brace-setting twister and an external brace stirrup.
( 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 § 890.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, regarding general requirements concerning records and § 820.198, regarding complaint files.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 66 FR 38816, July 25, 2001]
NO. 07-02-00093-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

MARCH 19, 2002, 

______________________________

RESHAWN L. JOHNSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 97-424,513; HON. BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J, QUINN, REAVIS and JOHNSON, J.J.

Reshawn L. Johnson, (Johnson), a current inmate with the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice (TDCJ), filed a notice of appeal on February 21, 2002. However, Johnson

did not pay the $125 filling fee required from appellants pursuant to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 5. Nor did he (at the time he noticed his appeal) file an affidavit

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1 relieving him of his duty to do so. By

letter from this Court dated February 25, 2002, we informed appellant that “[u]nless the

filing fee in the amount of $125.00 is paid . . . [his] appeal will be subject to dismissal. TEX.
2

R. APP. P. 42.3(c); See Holt v. F. F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.--Amarillo

1998, pet. ref’d.). 

In apparent response to our February letter, the court received from Johnson a

document entitled Affidavit of Indigency In Lieu of Cost Bond, wherein he represented that

he was an indigent. Yet, the affidavit does not comport with the requirements of an

affidavit of indigence specified under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(b). Nor was

it filed within the deadlines set by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(c)(1)

(establishing the deadline by which one must request leave to proceed as a pauper) and

20.1(c)(3) (establishing the deadline by which one must seek leave to extend the deadline

contemplated under 20.1(c)(1)). Nor was it accompanied by any motion for leave to extend

either of those deadlines. Thus, we conclude that appellant’s Affidavit of Indigency is

ineffective to relieve him from his obligation to pay the aforementioned filing fee. 

Due to appellant’s failure to pay the filing fee, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3 (c). 

 Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.5235 Aversive conditioning device. ( a ) *Identification.* An aversive conditioning device is an instrument used to administer an electrical shock or other noxious stimulus to a patient to modify undesirable behavioral characteristics.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls), except for electrical stimulation devices for self-injurious or aggressive behavior. Electrical stimulation devices for self-injurious or aggressive behavior are banned. See § 895.105 of this chapter.
[44 FR 51730, Sept. 4, 1979, as amended at 85 FR 13354, Mar. 6, 2020]
Employment Letter Agreement Patricia McCall dtd. 01/13/2003



 
Exhibit 10.15

 
January 13, 2003 
 
Ms. Patricia H. McCall 
10350 Magdalena Road 
Los Altos Hills, CA
94024 
 
Dear Pat: 
 
On behalf of ChipPAC Inc., this is to confirm the change in your position
responsibilities and compensation. Effective January 1, 2003, your position will be that of Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary to our BOD, reporting to Dennis McKenna, President and Chief Executive Officer. 
 
In this position, your revised compensation will be as follows: 
 

	•	 	An annual base salary of $225,000 (two hundred twenty-five thousand dollars) to be paid on a semi-monthly basis. 

 
All other provisions remain as agreed in the previous letter Agreement dated
October 9, 2000. ChipPAC continues to recognize the traditional Employment-At-Will doctrine between an employer and an employee, which means that either party has the right to terminate the employment relationship at any time with or without cause
or notice. Similarly, we both agreed that any dispute arising with respect to your employment, the termination of that employment, including any alleged breach of contract claims or breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing related to your
employment at ChipPAC shall be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. 
 
This letter and the Agreement of October 9, 2000 contain the entire agreement with respect to your employment and supersede any other agreements regarding
your employment status. No ChipPAC representative, with the exception of ChipPAC’s President or Human Resources has any authority to modify or enter into an agreement or modification, express or implied, contrary to the foregoing. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
/s/    Connie Fredrickson-Bray 
Vice President, Human Resources
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3010 Bone fixation cerclage. ( a ) *Identification.* A bone fixation cerclage is a device intended to be implanted that is made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and that consists of a metallic ribbon or flat sheet or a wire. The device is wrapped around the shaft of a long bone, anchored to the bone with wire or screws, and used in the fixation of fractures.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
§ 876.5450 Rectal dilator. ( a ) *Identification.* A rectal dilator is a device designed to dilate the anal sphincter and canal when the size of the anal opening may interfere with its function or the passage of an examining instrument.
( 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 § 876.9.
[48 FR 53023, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 1122, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38802, July 25, 2001]
IB 

Union Calendar No. 545 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7100 

[Report No. 118–648] 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the organization of the 

Office of Survivors Assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2024 

Mr. CISCOMANI (for himself and Mr. BOST) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7100 RH

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the organization of the Office of Survivors Assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 7100 RH

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 ‘‘Prioritizing Veterans’ 

5 Survivors Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE 

7 OF SURVIVORS ASSISTANCE OF THE DEPART8 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

9 Section 321(a) of title 38, United States Code, is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘in the Department’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘in the Office of the Secretary’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Union Calendar No. 545 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7100 

[Report No. 118–648] 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify 

ance of the Department of Veterans Affairs. the organization of the Office of Survivors AssistSEPTEMBER 6, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.4900 Skullplate screwdriver. ( a ) *Identification.* A skullplate screwdriver is a tool used by the surgeon to fasten cranioplasty plates or skullplates to a patient's skull by screws.
( 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 § 882.9.
[44 FR 51730, Sept. 4, 1979, as amended at 59 FR 63012, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38808, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1910 Radiographic grid. ( a ) *Identification.* A radiographic grid is a device that consists of alternating radiolucent and radiopaque strips intended to be placed between the patient and the image receptor to reduce the amount of scattered radiation reaching the image receptor.
( 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 § 892.9.
[53 FR 1567, Jan. 20, 1988, as amended at 65 FR 2323, Jan. 14, 2000]
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07925

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 07925\07925_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

07925\07925_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 07925\07925_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07925\07925_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07925\07925_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07925\07925_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07925\07925_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

07925\Certification Statement Plant ID 07925.pdf Plant certification statement

x 07925\Supplemental Documents\Diagrams\07925_RIVERBEND A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07925\Supplemental Documents\Diagrams\07925_Riverbend A5-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07925\Supplemental Documents\Diagrams\07925_Riverbend D3-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Corey
Henry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-4
(the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on
my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in
all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their
related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in
such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above,
I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.



By:

/s/ Corey HenryName:

Corey HenryTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerSantander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor(senior officer in charge of securitization ofthe depositor)Date:

March 29, 2019
EXHIBIT 32.a



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|                |     |                            
|--------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|Date:           |     |                            
|August 22, 2005 | By: | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                |     |                            
|                |     | John P. Manning            
|                |     | Principal Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2014253EN.01006402.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/64

---

Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Dordal v Commission

(Case T-469/14)

2014/C 253/88

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dordal, SA (Barcelona, 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 the 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 the 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 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 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 raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

---