alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014431EN.01001101.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 25 August 2014 — PST CLC a.s. v Generální ředitelství cel

(Case C-405/14)

(2014/C 431/17)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PST CLC a.s.

Applicant:

Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Was Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 (1) of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid at the time of its effectiveness from 22 March 2004 to 22 December 2009 insofar as point 2 of the annex thereto is concerned, which specifies that products consisting of a heat sink and a fan fall within CN Code 8414 59 30, and was it thus applicable to the present case?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21.

1

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7871 

To designate the Miami Federal Correctional Institution in Florida as the 

Donald J. Trump Federal Correctional Institution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2024 

Mr. CONNOLLY (for himself, Mr. MOSKOWITZ, and Mr. GARAMENDI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To designate the Miami Federal Correctional Institution in 

Florida as the Donald J. Trump Federal Correctional 

Institution. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DONALD J. TRUMP FEDERAL 

4 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Miami Federal Correctional 

6 Institution in Florida shall, after date of the enactment 

7 of this Act, be known and designated as the ‘‘Donald J. 

8 Trump Federal Correctional Institution’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7871 IH

1 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law, regula2 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the institution referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be considered to be a reference to the ‘‘Donald J. Trump 

5 Federal Correctional Institution’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2016118EN.01002901.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2016 — Puma v OHIM — Sinda Poland (Representation of an animal)

(Case T-692/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative mark representing an animal - Earlier international figurative marks representing a puma - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 118/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, J. Rasiewicz and J. Mrozowski, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2014 (Case R 2214/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma SE and Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 July 2014 (Case R 2214/2013—5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 July 2014 (Case R 2214/2013—5);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Puma SE, including those necessarily incurred by Puma SE for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Puma SE, including those necessarily incurred by Puma SE for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM;

| 3. | Orders Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Puma SE, including those necessarily incurred by Puma SE for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Sinda Poland Corporation sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Puma SE, including those necessarily incurred by Puma SE for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

---

(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                      Acknowledgement of Ernst & Young LLP

The Board of Directors
Biopure Corporation

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:

    . Form S-8 (No. 333-48924)

    . Form S-8 (No. 333-96085)

    . Form S-3 (No. 333-102786)

    . Form S-3 (No. 333-103610)

    . Form S-3 (No. 333-66464) and

    . Form S-8 (No. 333-88426)

of our reports dated March 13, 2002, June 10, 2002, September 10, 2002 and March
13, 2003 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial
statements of Biopure Corporation that are included in its Form 10-Q for the
quarters ended January 31, 2002, April 30, 2002, July 31, 2002 and January 31,
2003.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, our reports are not part
of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within the
meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

                                                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 13, 2003
# GASTAR EXPLORATION LTD

FORM 10-K (Annual Report)



## Filed 03/11/13 for the Period Ending 12/31/12

Address 1331 LAMAR STREET SUITE 650 HOUSTON, TX 77010 Telephone 7137391800 CIK 0001170154 Symbol GST SIC Code 1311 - Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry Oil & Gas Operations Sector Energy Fiscal Year 12/31

http://www.edgar-online.com © Copyright 2013, EDGAR Online, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Distribution and use of this document restricted under EDGAR Online, Inc. Terms of Use.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1

                        [LETTERHEAD OF VENTURE LAW GROUP]

                                October 21, 1999

Corixa Corporation
1124 Columbia Street, Suite 200
Seattle, WA  98104

        REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-8

Ladies and Gentlemen:

        We have examined the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (the
"Registration Statement") to be filed by Corixa Corporation ("Corixa") with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") in connection with the
registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of a total of 73,350
shares of Corixa's Common Stock (the "Shares") reserved for issuance by Corixa
pursuant to the Anergen, Inc. 1988 Stock Option Plan, the Anergen, Inc. 1992
Consultant Plan, the Anergen, Inc. 1995 Director Option Plan and the Anergen,
Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan. As Corixa's legal counsel in connection with this
transaction, we have examined the proceedings taken and are familiar with the
proceedings proposed to be taken by Corixa in connection with the sale and
issuance of the Shares.

        It is our opinion that upon conclusion of the proceedings being taken or
contemplated by us, as Corixa's legal counsel, to be taken prior to the issuance
of the Shares, and upon completion of the proceedings being taken in order to
permit such transactions to be carried out in accordance with the securities
laws of the various states where required, the Shares when issued and sold in
the manner described in the Registration Statement will be legally and validly
issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

        We consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement and further consent to the use of our name wherever appearing in the
Registration Statement and in any amendment thereto.

        This opinion is solely for your benefit and may not be relied upon by
any other person without our prior written consent.

                                                   Very truly yours,

                                                   VENTURE LAW GROUP
                                                   A Professional Corporation

                                                   /s/Venture Law Group

MJH
# FAWLEYI BRYANT'

ARCHITECTURE• INTERIORS• PlANNING
July 8, 2012 Ms. Aloha Ley Office ofAviation Analysis 1200 NewJerseyAve., SE, W86-310 Washington, DC 20590 Re: Small CommunityAirService Development Program Docket DOT-OST-2012-0069 Sarasota Bradenton International Airport (SRQ) Dear Ms. Ley: ''t·'**'~** :**·~** i

.. ; ,::.:,iilt t Ll ?l ,;. I

Iam writing as President of Fawley!Bryant, an Architectural/Interior Design/Planning Firm with offices in Sarasota and Bradenton Florida to express ourstrong supportforthe above referenced grantapplication to the Small CommunityAir Service Development Program. The recent decision by SouthwestAirlines to pull AirTran service from SRQ is a major blow to the air service and economic competitiveness of the entire region served by Sarasota Bradenton International Airport. AirTran accounted for over 360,000 passengers or nearly30% ofall passengertrafficat SRQ in 2011. Sarasota Bradenton also suffers from a lack of access to a westbound airline gateway. Our firm has another office in Durango, Colorado and currently the only way to get this office is for us to fly out of Tampa (TPA) which is about an hour farther through heavy traffic than SRQ. This inflicts economic damage pn the local economy plus costs .ourfirm's business travelers valuable time. · A 1997 Economic Impact Study completed as part ofthe SRQ Master Plan Update revealed that 57% of ail enplanements at SRQ were out ofarea visitors spending an average of $665.00 per visit. Using the CY 2011 AirTran passenger traffic this equates to 102,600 visitors to the SRQ area. When combined with the 100,000 passengers lost due to no westqound service this equates to a loss of over $105,000,000 ofdirect visitor expenditures annually. When the multipiiereffect is factored in it equates to a loss ofnearly $285,000,000 ofeconomic impact and 2,600jobs to the area. The community is partnering with the airport to match the grant funds dollar for dollar on this critical matter. We ask the Department consider the serious negative effe.cts the recent approval provided to SouthwestAirlines to acquire AirTran Airways has had on our communityand approve the application for assistance. Thank you for your consideration;

Cc: The Honorable Ray H, LaHood, Secretary ofTransportation United States Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 ,j t j I ; •j :**~·** \

. ; t \ ( 1 \.**~** ' 1 /
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7963 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7963

 To amend title 31, United States Code, to require FinCEN to submit to 
   Congress a quarterly report on certain beneficial ownership data.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 11, 2024

Mr. Nunn of Iowa (for himself and Mr. Cuellar) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 31, United States Code, to require FinCEN to submit to 
   Congress a quarterly report on certain beneficial ownership data.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Red Tape Relief Act 
of 2024''.

SEC. 2. QUARTERLY REPORT ON CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP DATA.

    Section 5336(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) Quarterly report on certain beneficial ownership 
        data.--With respect to the first quarter that begins after the 
        date of the enactment of this paragraph, and each quarter 
        thereafter, the Director shall submit to the Committee on 
        Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the 
        Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives 
        a report that includes, with respect to the period covered by 
        the report--
                    ``(A) the number of reporting companies described 
                in paragraph (1)(B) that submitted a report required 
                under this subsection;
                    ``(B) the number of reporting companies described 
                in paragraph (1)(C) that submitted a report required 
                under this subsection; and
                    ``(C) the number of reporting companies that 
                submitted a report required under paragraph (1)(D).''.
                                 <all>
```
TIME 08:30 EDT

DATE 6/1/2016

RECORD OF CONVERSATION

NAME(S) OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONFERENCE AND LOCATION

Thomas Schaner, Director of Operations, Air Net II, LLC

SUBJECT

Request for exemption: Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2016-3686

DIGEST

Mr. Thomas Schaner was contacted by the FAA to obtain clarification and additional information for 

Air Net II, LLC’s (Air Net) petition for an exemption from 14 CFR 61.51 (f)(2). Air Net is a part 135 

operator with operation configurations for passengers and cargo operations for its fleet of BE-58 and 

LR-35-A aircraft. The petitioner noted that Air Net has a second-in-command (SIC) training program 

for operations in both aircraft. According to Mr. Schaner, the vast majority of Air Net’s operations 

involve cargo. Mr. Schaner noted that it is difficult to retain SIC pilots in Air Net’s BE-58 due to 

limited operations needing an SIC. Mr. Schaner expressed that relief from 14 CFR 61.51 (f)(2) would

be of great benefit due to increased SIC exposure to Air Net operations.

The FAA requested clarification regarding Air Net’s belief that its relief sought is similar in all material 

aspects to the relief granted to Ameriflight, LLC (Ameriflight) in exemption No. 9770D. The petitioner 

explained that Air Net works closely with Ameriflight and expressed that the methods in which both 

operators conducts pilot training are very similar. The FAA explained to the petitioner that Air Net 

differs from Ameriflight due to Ameriflight’s operation configurations are listed as cargo only. The

FAA also explained that Air Net’s LR-35-A requires a minimum of two crewmembers therefore its 

petition for exemption should be exclusively for BE-58 operations.

CONCLUSION, ACTION TAKEN, OR REQUIRED

The information obtained was relevant to the petition for exemption and will be considered. An email from the petitioner will be submitted to the General Aviation and Commercial Division in efforts 

to further specify Air Net’s use of the relief sought.

Neil Rose, Acting Manager, Airmen Training and Certification Branch, AFS-810

Jabari Raphael, Aviation Safety Analyst, Airmen Training and Certification Branch, AFS-810
Exhibit 13.1

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
Annual Report of Deswell Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: August 2, 2011



/s/ Franki S. F. TseFranki S. F. Tse,Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 2, 2011



/s/ Herman WongHerman WongChief Financial Officer
NUMBER 13-19-00457-CR

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RUBEN NUNEZ JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 430th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina 

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant's fifth motion for extension of time to 

file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on February 26, 2020, and 

this Court has previously granted appellant four extensions for the filing of appellant’s 

brief in this cause.
The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's fifth motion for 

extension of time to file the brief and the extensions previously granted in this cause, is 

of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's fifth motion for extension of time 

to file the brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, looks with disfavor 

upon the delay caused by counsel's failure to have filed a brief in this matter.

Appellant's fifth motion for extension of time to file the brief is hereby GRANTED 

IN PART, and the Honorable Hector Bustos, counsel for appellant, is hereby ORDERED 

to file the appellate brief with this Court on or before November 9, 2020. Further motions 

for extension of time absent exigent circumstances will not be favorably entertained by 

the Court.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

30th day of October, 2020.
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.3302 Bone-conduction hearing aid. ( a ) *Identification.* A bone-conduction hearing aid is a wearable sound-amplifying device intended to compensate for impaired hearing and that conducts sound to the inner ear through the skull. The non-implantable components of a bone-conduction hearing aid, such as the external sound processor, are subject to the requirements in § 801.422 of this chapter.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
[87 FR 50762, Aug. 17, 2022]
39232.

#### GEORGIA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY v. BRADSHAW.

Decided February 23, 1962.

*417Wilson, *Branch & Barwick, Thomas S. Bentley,*for plaintiff in error.

*Lewis R. Slaton, Jr., Edward H. Robertson,*contra.

Hall, Judge.

The petition alleges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in a stated amount for premiums on in-' surance policies, showing the number of each policy, the effective dates and the premium due on each. It fully apprizes the defendant of the character of the plaintiff’s demand, so as to enable him to prepare his defense. It does not affirmatively disclose a want of defendant’s liability, nor contain any defect that can be successfully attacked by general demurrer. It therefore is sufficient to state a cause of action on open account. *Henry Darling, Inc. v. Harvey-Given Co.,*40 Ga. App. 771 (151 SE 518); *Holcombe v. Parker,*98 Ga. App. 17 (104 SE2d 595); *Southern Wire & Iron, Inc. v. American Cas. Co.,*103 Ga. App. 267 (118 SE2d 859).

The cases of *Jones v. Gilbert,*93 Ga. 604 (20 SE 48); *Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Williams,*1 Ga. App. 603 (57 SE 1018); and *Associated Mutuals, Inc. v. Pope Lumber Co.,*200 Ga. 487 (37 SE2d 393), relied on by the defendant, deal with the effect of evidence introduced on the trial, in support or in defense, of actions involving insurance contracts and premiums, and those decisions do not affect the present question.

*418The trial court erred in sustaining the renewed demurrer and in dismissing the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.*
From: Janis Hudson

To: Wiley, Adina

Cc: Michael Wilhoit; Mike Wilson

Subject: Flexible Permit Amendment Applications

Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 1:24:51 PM

You asked that TCEQ provide EPA with data regarding how many flexible permit

amendment applications were subject to public notice requirements, and how many of

those were applications concerned agricultural facilities.

The table below provides the information that the TCEQ’s Air Permits Division has

tracked with regard to the number of flexible permit amendment applications received

over three specific time periods, and how many of those were subject to notice. 

These time periods were chosen to represent:

1. The initial time period for flexible permits (rules adopted in 1994, and first permits

issued in 1995), which were under the notice requirements in effect prior to the

adoption and interpretive rulemaking for HB 2518 (77th Legislature, 2001).

2. The span of FY02 – FY10 is the approximate time period for initial applicability of

HB 2518 and the rule interpreting it (30 Tex. Admin. Code § 39.402). The rule

became effective November 13, 2001.

3. The span of FY11 – FY13 represents the approximate time period for which the

amended rule, which segregated the flexible permit amendment applications in the

rule (30 Tex. Admin. Code § 39.402(a)(5)), has been in effect (beginning June 24,

2010). This rule was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision in July 2010.

Fiscal Year* Time

Periods

Number of Amendment

Applications

Number of Amendment

Applications that Went to

Public Notice

FY94 – FY01 87 0

FY02 – FY10 277 121

FY11 – FY13 49 14

*FY is September 1 – August 31.

A review of the records regarding the holders of flexible permits revealed that only

one was considered to be an agricultural facility, and it was issued in 2006. No permit

amendment applications were filed for that permit, which has subsequently been

deflexed.