alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005155EN.01002202.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/22

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 March 2005

in Case T-84/04 Axiom Medical, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

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

(2005/C 155/44)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-84/04: Axiom Medical, Inc., established in Rancho Dominguez (United States of America), represented by R. Köbbing, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by G. Schneider, acting as Agent, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being Paul Hartmann Aktiengesellschaft, established in Heidenheim (Germany), — ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2003 (Case R 193/2002-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Axiom Medical, Inc. and Paul Hartmann Aktiengesellschaft — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application;

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32

                              MAMMATECH CORPORATION
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Mammatech Corporation
(the"Company") on Form 10-KS/A for the period ended August 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"),
we, Henry S. Pennypacker, President and Chief Executive Officer and Mary Bailey
Sellers, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


By: /s/ Henry S. Pennypacker                            Dated: February 8, 2005
    -------------------------------
    Henry S. Pennypacker
    Title: President, Chief Executive Officer

    /s/ Mary Bailey Sellers
    -------------------------------
    Mary Bailey Sellers
    Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

     This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-40384 Conference Calendar

__________________ RONNIE SULLIVAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus DAVID COLE, Captain, TDCJ-ID, Beto I; MITCHELL L. JOHNSON, Lt., TDCJ-ID, Beto I; SHANNON DACUS, Officer L-03, TDCJ-ID, Beto I, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CV-155
- - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ronnie Sullivan, #630453, appeals the district court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. The district court correctly held that Sullivan did not have a due process liberty interest in being upgraded from administrative-segregation status to a less restrictive custody status. See Sandin v. Conner , 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995); Pichardo v. Kinker , 73 F.3d 612, 613 (5th Cir. 1996). Sullivan’s claim, raised for the first time in response to the magistrate judge’sNo. 96-40384 -2- report, that the defendants improperly deprived him of personal items failed to state a cognizable constitutional claim. Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Myers v. Adams , 728 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. 1987). Sullivan’s Eighth Amendment claim was supported by no factual allegations and was therefore frivolous. See Wesson v. Oglesby , 910 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review.  Subject to Further Policy Review.

1

EPA NPRM: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3,

GHG Plantwide Applicability Limitations and GHG Synthetic Minor Limitations

p. 49 Include comment bubble JES90 in footnote.

See new footnote 40.

p.50 Comment JES101 seems to contradict the phrase “unless EPA stipulates otherwise”. Please explain

in the text or footnote the degree of discretion implied by EPA’s ability to stipulate otherwise. Can EPA

stipulate whatever it wants, or does it face some constraints? DONE

p.51 comment JES108 contradicts the statement at the top of page 49 that states “can  only issue a PAL

to a GHG‐only source when the source proposes to undertake such a change”. In your comment you

state that it is only after the change occurs. Which is it? Either correct p 49 or or change p.51 from “(1)

issue PALs to GHG‐only sources  ;” to “(1) issue PALs to GHG‐only sources that are not proposing to

increase emissions by 75,000 tpy CO2e ;” DONE

p.59 typo “inder” to “under” DONE

p.59 please clarify in text what the “enhanced recordkeeping reporting and monitoring” of a PAL are.

This makes it sound like there is more monitoring, etc, whereas the earlier discussion seems to imply

that the rule would reduce monitoring. Do you mean “reduced” instead of “enhanced”?

(No changes to the preamble) The rule as a whole would reduce monitoring when implemented. The

PALs regulations do contain enhanced recording and monitoring provisions, but because of the reduced

number of permit actions resulting from the use of PALs the overall effect is burden reduction.  

p.64 comment JES136 suggests that calling a source a “synthetic minor” does not make it a “minor”,

since its emissions will still be larger than the “minor” threshold. So it will be treated as a minor source

for a conventional pollutant would be, while still being above the minor threshold? Please clarify in text.

(No changes to the preamble) A source with a synthetic minor permit will not have emissions larger than

the minor thresholds. Synthetic minor limits are enforceable and have the effect of limiting the sources

emissions without changing the threshold.
# Saudi Arabia

364 items

        -    		Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel, April 29-May 1, 2024	   
        -    Press Statement  		Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel	  Matthew MillerApril 27, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Saudi Arabia	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 15, 2024	  Matthew MillerApril 15, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud	  April 14, 2024 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Timothy Lenderking, Special Envoy for Yemen	  Timothy A. LenderkingApril 3, 2024Dubai Hub 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen Lenderking’s Travel to Saudi Arabia and Oman	  April 1, 2024 
        -    Special Briefing  		Special Online Briefing with Special Envoy for Sudan Tom Perriello	  March 21, 2024London Hub 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud	  March 21, 2024 
        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Christiane Baissary of Al Hadath	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 20, 2024Ritz-Carlton HotelJeddah, Saudi Arabia 

previous page1234…37next page

Back to Top
#### Shirley Evans PENROW v. Hoyt WILLIAMS, Robert E. Nader, d/b/a Williams, Nader & Co.

No. 52455.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 18, 1981.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1981.

Paul D. Snow, III, Jackson, for appellant.

Richard L. Forman, Thomas E. Williams, Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Cannada, Jackson, for appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; Charles T. Barber, Judge.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and BROOM and HAWKINS, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VERNON WAYNE McNEAL, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J. RUSH; O. SPENCER,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-17196

D.C. No. 5:11-cv-02798-EJD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2014** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Vernon Wayne McNeal, Jr., appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623

FILED

AUG 21 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that McNeal failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies, and that McNeal did not demonstrate that such remedies

were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95

(2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to

administrative procedural rules); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir.

2010) (where defendant establishes failure to exhaust, burden shifts to plaintiff to

prove that administrative remedies were unavailable to him).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-17196
§ 405.445 Cancellation of opt-out and early termination of opt-out. ( a ) A physician or practitioner may cancel opt-out by submitting a written notice to each Medicare Administrative Contractor to which he or she would file claims absent the opt-out, not later than 30 days before the end of the current 2-year opt-out period, indicating that the physician or practitioner does not want to extend the application of the opt-out affidavit for a subsequent 2-year period.
( b ) To properly terminate opt-out a physician or practitioner must: ( 1 ) Not have previously opted out of Medicare.
( 2 ) Notify all Medicare Administrative Contractors, with which he or she filed an affidavit, of the termination of the opt-out no later than 90 days after the effective date of the initial 2-year period.
( 3 ) Refund to each beneficiary with whom he or she has privately contracted all payment collected in excess of: ( i ) The Medicare limiting charge (in the case of physicians); or
( ii ) The deductible and coinsurance (in the case of practitioners).
( 4 ) Notify all beneficiaries with whom the physician or practitioner entered into private contracts of the physician's or practitioner's decision to terminate opt-out and of the beneficiaries' right to have claims filed on their behalf with Medicare for the services furnished during the period between the effective date of the opt-out and the effective date of the termination of the opt-out period.
( c ) When the physician or practitioner properly terminates opt-out in accordance with paragraph (b), he or she will be reinstated in Medicare as if there had been no opt-out, and the provision of § 405.425 shall not apply unless the physician or practitioner subsequently properly opts out.
( d ) A physician or practitioner who has completed opt-out on or before January 1, 1999 may terminate opt-out during the 90 days following January 1, 1999 if he or she notifies all carriers to whom he or she would otherwise submit claims of the intent to terminate opt-out and complies with paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section. Paragraph (c) of this section applies in these cases.
[63 FR 58901, Nov. 2, 1998, as amended at 80 FR 71371, Nov. 16, 2015]
Exhibit 32.1
 
 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 Quarterly Report of PLM Equipment Growth Fund V (the Partnership), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the President of the General Partner and of the Partnership, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
 
 (1)  the Report of the Partnership filed today fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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 Partnership.
 
 
 
 
 /s/ James A. Coyne
 James A. Coyne
 President of PLM Financial Services, Inc
 August 12, 2004
#### Anthony Mulderrig, Respondent, *v.*Luke A. Burke et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

October, 1898.)

Mistake — By one who could not read an instrument.

A contractor, who cannot read, is bound by the terms o$ an instrument, fixing the price of his work, where he was in no manner induced to refrain from examining the instrument and where his evidence that, when he signed it, he supposed that it stated a larger price which had been agreed upon, is contradicted.

Afpeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court, ninth district, borough of Manhattan, New York city.

Cromwell G. Macy, for appellants.

Thomas O’Callaghan, Jr., for respondent.

*717Beekman, P. J.

The memorandum in writing, signed by both parties, which expressed the terms upon which the plaintiff undertook the mason work he did for the defendants, states that the price to be paid was at the rate of five cents a foot. The plaintiff claims that the agreement was for five and one-half cents; that he could not read writing, and that when he signed the paper he supposed it truly expressed the arrangement which had been made for the larger sum. He is flatly contradicted by the witnesses for the defendants iwith respect to his version of the agreement. The alleged error in the written evidence of the contract being in dispute, and there being no proof tending to show that the plaintiff was in any way induced to refrain from examining the paper; or that any other- deceit of- like character had been practiced upon him, he must be held to the consequences of his own act, and be bound by the terms of the instrument which he admits that he signed. Any other conclusion than this would render written evidence of an agreement 'of little value and invite its impeachment by such testimony as has been given here whenever the interest of a party made it desirable to avoid it. It follows that the judgment rendered by the trial justice in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed.

Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.
----

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 — Scotto v Commission

(Case T-76/05) (1)

(2005/C 281/62)

Language of the case: Italian

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

----

(1)OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 03, 2014. 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. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 03, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15I0001. ZACK LOEHLE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH ALAN LOEHLE et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2010EV011569 2010EV011568
EXHIBIT 32
                                                           ----------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 on
Form 10-QSB/A of Touchstone Applied Science Associates,
Inc. (the "Company"), for the quarter ended July 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew
L. Simon, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Touchstone
Applied Science Associates, Inc., to the best of my
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.

Dated:  June 13, 20045


                                /s/ ANDREW L. SIMON
                                ---------------------------

                                Andrew L. Simon, President,
                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Touchstone Applied
Science Associates, Inc. and will be retained by
Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 409
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 409 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

§ 409.85 Skilled nursing facility (SNF) care coinsurance. ( a ) *General provisions.* ( 1 ) SNF care coinsurance is the amount chargeable to a beneficiary after the first 20 days of SNF care in a benefit period.
( 2 ) For each day from the 21st through the 100th day, the coinsurance is 1 ⁄ 8 of the applicable inpatient hospital deductible.
( 3 ) For coinsurance days before January 1, 1982, the coinsurance amount is based on the deductible applicable for the year in which the benefit period began. The coinsurance amounts do not change during a beneficiary's benefit period even though the coinsurance days may fall in a subsequent year for which a higher deductible amount has been determined.
( 4 ) For coinsurance days after December 31, 1981, the coinsurance amount is based on the deductible applicable for the calendar year in which the services were furnished.
( b ) *Specific coinsurance amounts.* The specific SNF coinsurance amounts for each calendar year are published in the Federal Register no later than October 1 of the preceding year.
( c ) *Exception to published amounts.* If the actual charge to the patient is less than the coinsurance amount applicable for the calendar year in which the services were furnished, the actual charge per day is the daily coinsurance.
[48 FR 12541, Mar. 25, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 4026, Jan. 27, 1989]
HomeThailand

# Thailand

170 items

        -    Media Note  		Foreign Service Institute Director Polaschik Travels to Thailand, India, and Austria	  November 8, 2022 
        -    Fact Sheet  		U.S. Security Cooperation With Thailand	  October 31, 2022 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Indonesia:  Peacekeeping Exercise Garuda Canti Dharma II Helps Partners Develop Critical Capabilities	  October 18, 2022 
        -    TIAS  		Thailand (22-1011) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters	  October 11, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – October 6, 2022	  Vedant PatelOctober 6, 2022Washington, DC 
        -    Press Statement  		Mass Shooting in Thailand	  Antony J. BlinkenOctober 6, 2022 
        -    Special Briefing via Telephone  		Telephonic Press Briefing with United States Trade Representative Ambassador Katherine Tai	  September 18, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Special Advisor on International Disability Rights Minkara’s Travel to Germany, Thailand, and Malaysia 	  August 31, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Thailand	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Thailand	  July 19, 2022 

previous page1…56789…17next page

Back to Top