alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2006042EN.01002201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 18.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/22 |

---

Lists for the determination of the composition of the formations of the Court

(2006/C 42/08)

At its meeting on 17 January 2006, the Court drew up the list referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the determination of the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A.M. La Pergola |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | L.Bay Larsen |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J.-P. Puissochet |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A. Ó Caoimh |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | R. Schintgen |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | E. Levits |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | N. Colneric |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | U. Lõhmus |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | S. von Bahr |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J. Klučka |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J.N. Cunha Rodrigues |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J. Malenovský |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | R. Silva De Lapuerta |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | M. Ilešič |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | K. Lenaerts |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | A. Borg Barthet |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | K. Schiemann |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | G. Arestis |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J. Makarczyk |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | E. Juhász |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | P. Kūris |

At its meeting on 17 January 2006, the Court drew up the list referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the determination of the composition of the Second Chamber as follows:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | R. Schintgen |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | L.Bay Larsen |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | R. Silva De Lapuerta |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J. Klučka |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J. Makarczyk |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | G. Arestis |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | P. Kūris |

At its meeting on 17 January 2006, the Court drew up the list referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the determination of the composition of the Fifth Chamber as follows:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | R. Schintgen |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | R. Silva De Lapuerta |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | P. Kūris |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | G. Arestis |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | J. Klučka |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | L.Bay Larsen |

---
# C_2005193EN.01003901.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/39

---

(2005/C 193/65)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

Past publications

OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---
# C_2006086EN.01002402.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 — Albrecht and Others v Commission

(Case T-251/03) (1)

1

(Health policy - Veterinary medicinal products - Products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin - Commission decision ordering suspension of marketing authorisations - Competence)

(2006/C 86/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Albert Albrecht GmbH & Co. KG, (Aulendorf, Germany), AniMedica GmbH (Seden-Bösensell, Germany), Ceva Tiergensundheit GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany), Fatro SpA (Bologna, Italy), Laboratorios Syva, SA (León, Spain), Laboratorios Virbac, SA (Barcelona, Spain), Química Farmacéutica Bayer, SA (Barcelona), Univete Técnica Pecuaria Comercio Industria, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal), Vétoquinol Especialidades Veterinarias, SA (Madrid, Spain), Virbac SA (Carros, France), (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, U. Zinsmeister and N. Rampal, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Shotter, Agents)

Defendant(s):

:

Intervener(s) in support of the applicant(s): French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, Agents)

Intervener(s) in support of the applicant(s):

Application for

annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 4.10.2003.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Daniel L. Warfel, Chief Financial Officer of Omega Financial Corporation,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K ofOmega Financial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this amendment to the annual report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this annual report;   Date: 11/29/2004 /s/ Daniel L. Warfel  Chief Financial Officer
8
#### § 137.235 May an Indian Tribe withdraw from a participating inter-Tribal consortium or Tribal organization?

Yes, an Indian Tribe may fully or partially withdraw from a participating inter-Tribal consortium or Tribal organization its share of any PSFAs included in a compact or funding agreement.
|   | • | Clause 1.  Amended to extend terms of the LOI for the Parties to continue good faith negotiations with the intent to agree on business terms for a formal business relationship and definitive agreement by an additional 220 days post initial date of end of good faith agreements.  For the avoidance of doubt, the additional 220 days will extend the period of good faith negotiations until Jun 30, 2011. |
|--------|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • |  Clause 3.  Amended to execute the option in LOI extension of Exclusive Licence Period for three (3) additional thirty (30) day periods at a cost of  seventy-thousand dollars  (USD $70,000) per period, for a total payment by Novartis of $210,000.  For the avoidance of doubt, the period of exclusivity will extend from January 13, 2011 through April 13, 2011. |
|--------|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | Novartis Diagnostics shall have the right to extend the Exclusive License Period for an additional 78 Days, payable at cost of seventy-thousand dollars (USD $70,000) per thirty days. |
|--------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.  |   | Accelr8 Technology Corporation |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                                          |   |                           |
| By:                                      |   | By:                       |
| (Signature)                                   |   | (Signature)                    |
| Name:                                         |   | Name:                     |
|                                          |   |                           |
| Title:                                   |   | Title:                         |
|                                          |   |                           |
| Date:                                    |   | Date:                     |

| Accelr8 Technology Corporation   | NOVARTIS V&D  |
|--------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| CIT201011051546                  | Page 1 of 1       |
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kerry Mustoe, Vice President, Interim Chief Financial Officer and
Corporate Controller, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|/s/ Kerry Mustoe                                                                       
|Kerry Mustoe Vice President and Interim Chief
Financial Officer Dated: November 7, 2007

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
§ 405.952 Withdrawal or dismissal of a request for a redetermination. ( a ) *Withdrawing a request.* A party that files a request for redetermination may withdraw its request by filing a written and signed request for withdrawal. The request for withdrawal must contain a clear statement that the appellant is withdrawing the request for a redetermination and does not intend to proceed further with the appeal. The request must be received in the contractor's mailroom before a redetermination is issued. The appeal will proceed with respect to any other parties that have filed a timely request for redetermination.
( b ) *Dismissing a request.* A contractor dismisses a redetermination request, either entirely or as to any stated issue, under any of the following circumstances: ( 1 ) When the person or entity requesting a redetermination is not a proper party under § 405.906(b) or does not otherwise have a right to a redetermination under section 1869(a) of the Act;
( 2 ) When the contractor determines the party failed to make out a valid request for redetermination that substantially complies with § 405.944;
( 3 ) When the party fails to file the redetermination request within the proper filing time frame in accordance with § 405.942;
( 4 ) When a beneficiary or the beneficiary's representative files a request for redetermination, but the beneficiary dies while the request is pending, and all of the following criteria apply: ( i ) The beneficiary's surviving spouse or estate has no remaining financial interest in the case. In deciding this issue, the contractor considers if the surviving spouse or estate remains liable for the services for which payment was denied or a Medicare contractor held the beneficiary liable for subsequent similar services under the limitation on liability provisions based on the denial of payment for services at issue;
( ii ) No other individual or entity with a financial interest in the case wishes to pursue the appeal; and
( iii ) No other party filed a valid and timely redetermination request under §§ 405.942 and 405.944;
( 5 ) When a party filing the redetermination request submits a timely written request for withdrawal with the contractor; or
( 6 ) When the contractor has not issued an initial determination on the claim or the matter for which a redetermination is sought.
( c ) *Notice of dismissal.* A contractor mails or otherwise transmits a written notice of the dismissal of the redetermination request to the parties at their last known addresses. The notice states that there is a right to request that the contractor vacate the dismissal action.
( d ) *Vacating a dismissal.* If good and sufficient cause is established, a contractor may vacate its dismissal of a request for redetermination within 180 calendar days from the date of the notice of dismissal.
( e ) *Effect of dismissal.* The dismissal of a request for redetermination is binding unless it is modified or reversed by a QIC under § 405.974(b) or vacated under paragraph (d) of this section.
[70 FR 11472, Mar. 8, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 65333, Dec. 9, 2009; 84 FR 19870, May 7, 2019]
#### § 417.940 Civil action to enforce compliance with assurances.

The provisions of § 417.163(g) apply to entities that have outstanding loans or loan guarantees administered under this subpart.

[59 FR 49843, Sept. 30, 1994]
----

Action brought on 8 April 2006 — Luigi Mancuccio v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-40/06)

(2006/C 143/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Mancuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: V. Messa, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former Commission official who took retirement on 30 May 2005, requested from that institution the bill of lading for his personal effects and property assigned to his residence in Angola, the country to which he had been assigned as an economic advisor with the Commission's delegation.

In May 2003, the defendant was arranging for the removal from the official lodgings assigned to the applicant, who maintains that only part of his personal effects were collected for removal. By memorandum of 16 May 2005, the defendant informed the applicant that his personal effects and his automobile had been sent to Italy and asked him to contact the shipping agent to arrange for delivery.

By letter of 1 March 2005, the applicant requested, inter alia, a detailed list of what had been delivered to him, and also a copy of the bill of lading. That request was not answered, as indicated in the claim brought by the applicant on 2 September 2005.

In support of his action, the applicant states that the implied decision to reject his claim is illegitimate on grounds of absolute failure to state reasons, infringement of the law, infringement of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials, the principle of transparency, the principle of sound administration, and also the principle of neminem laedere.

----
EXHIBIT 14

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



In connection with the Annual Report of Utah Medical Products, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin
L. Cornwell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.



/s/ Kevin L. Cornwell
--------------------------
Kevin L. Cornwell
Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Utah Medical Products, Inc. and will be retained by Utah Medical
Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designation of Al-Qa’ida Supporters

# 									Designation of Al-Qa’ida Supporters							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

September 16, 2021

The United States remains committed to combatting al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups around the world, including by countering their financing. Today, the United States imposed sanctions against five al-Qa’ida supporters operating in Turkey who provided financial and logistical support to the group. These designations are being taken pursuant to Executive Order 13224, as amended.

The United States will continue to work closely with our partners and allies, including Turkey, in identifying, exposing, and disrupting al-Qa’ida’s financial support networks. We will keep a vigilant eye on these networks to deter them from abusing the international financial system to generate revenues for terrorist operations.

The United States will never forget the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and al-Qa’ida’s other plots around the world. We will continue to target those who seek to inflict harm on the United States, our citizens, and our interests.

For more information on today’s action, please see the Department of the Treasury’s press release.

Tags

Al-QaidaBureau of CounterterrorismBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateTerrorismTerrorist DesignationTurkey

Back to Top
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 #11868 and #11869]
 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 New York (FEMA-1857-DR), dated September 1, 2009. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         August 8, 2009 through August 10, 2009. *Effective Date:*
                         September 1, 2009. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         November 2, 2009. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         June 1, 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 September 1, 2009, 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:* Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie. The Interest Rates are: PercentOther (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
4.500.Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000.
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11868B and for economic injury is 11869B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E9-21846 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P