alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016317EN.01000101.xml

| 30.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/1

---

NOTE TO READERS

(2016/C 317/01)

Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which gives the Court of Auditors responsibility for auditing all of the Union’s revenue and expenditure, and the provisions of Article 319 of the said Treaty on the granting of the discharge, the Court of Auditors has had its revenue and expenditure accounts audited by an external auditor every year since the close of the financial year 1987.

The reports which the external auditor of the Court of Auditors drew up in respect of the Court’s accounts for the financial years 1987 to 1991 were sent only to the Chairman of the European Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee.

Pursuant to a decision taken by the Members of the Court of Auditors at the Court meeting of 8 July 1993, the external auditor’s reports have since been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, starting with the report on the financial year 1992.

Official Journal of the European Union

For the Court of Auditors

Eduardo RUIZ GARCÍA

Secretary-General of the European Court of Auditors

---
SUMMARY STATEMENT

NEZ PERCE (NEE-ME-POO) NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

In 1968 Congress passed the National Trails System Act establishing a framework for 

developing a nationwide system of scenic, recreational, and historic trails. The Nez Perce (NeeMe-Poo) Trail, extending approximately 1,170 miles from the vicinity of Wallowa Lake, Oregon, 

to the Bear's Paw Battlefield near Chinook, Montana, was designated a National Historic Trail 

in 1986.

To qualify for designation as a National Historic Trail, it must meet the following three criteria:

 It must be a trail established by historic use and must be historically

 significant as a result of that use.

 It must be of national significance with respect to any of several broad

 facets of American history, such as trade, migration, settlement, or

 military campaigns.

 It must have significant potential for public recreational use of

 historical interest based on historic interpretation and appreciation.

The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish and provide guidelines for planning, 

development, management and protection of the Nez Perce National Historic Trail with 

sensitivity to its historic significance. The Comprehensive Plan is required by the National 

Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543).

Approved: October 5, 1990

_John W. Mumma____________________________________________________________

JOHN W. MUMMA, Regional Forester 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana

_Jack Neckels________________________________________________________________

JACK NECKELS, Acting Regional Forester 

USDI Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado

__Marvin LeNoue________________________________________________________

MARVIN LENOUE, State Director 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office, Billings, Montana
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2605 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2605

 To establish a sunset for the Authorization for Use of Military Force 
         Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2007

Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Jones of North 
 Carolina, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. 
Meehan, Mr. Michaud, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Ellison, and Mrs. Boyda of Kansas) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish a sunset for the Authorization for Use of Military Force 
         Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).

    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 ``Sunset of Public Law 107-243 Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. SUNSET OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243.

    The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 
of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:

``SEC. 5. SUNSET.

    ``This joint resolution shall cease to be effective beginning 180 
days after the date of the enactment of the Sunset of Public Law 107-
243 Act of 2007.''.

SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in the amendment made by section 2 of this Act shall be 
construed to prevent or prohibit Congress in the 180-day period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act from--
            (1) reauthorizing Public Law 107-243, with or without 
        amendment, as appropriate; and
            (2) passing a new authorization for the use of military 
        force against Iraq or a declaration of war against Iraq, as 
        appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
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 IR BioSciences  Holdings,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
each of the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates  indicated  below,
hereby  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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/ Michael Wilhelm
---------------------------
Michael Wilhelm
Chief Executive Officer
November 22, 2004


/s/ Eric Hopkins
---------------------------
Eric Hopkins
Chief Financial Officer
November 22, 2004

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

      ( print page 49862)    
The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 15 October 2009, at 10 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials.

                    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:                     *http://www.cfa.gov.*                     Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.                

Dated: 22 September in Washington, DC.

Thomas Luebke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-23420 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
# C_2022311EN.01000202.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/2

---

Appeal brought on 24 February 2022 by HG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-693/16 P RENV-RX, HG v Commission

(Case C-150/22 P)

(2022/C 311/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HG (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 30 June 2022, the Court (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal for manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report.**
 
2003 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019
 
SuDoc Number:I 53.43/3:
Item Number:0631-G-03 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000896871
 
January 28, 2020
**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 The Navigators Group, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Stanley A. Galanski, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)            The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Stanley A. Galanski               |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Stanley A. Galanski                   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |

May 2, 2006

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toThe Navigators Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Navigators Group, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

1

----
#### THE UNITED STATES v. P. LORILLARD CO.

[58 C. Cls. 541; 267 U. S. 471]

Judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*the Supreme Court deciding:

JBy Rev. Stats, section 3386, as amended, a drawback on tobacco, etc., subsequently exported, on which the tax has been paid by affixing stamps before removal from the factory, is allowed “ equal in amount to the value of the stamps found to have been so affixed.” *Helé*applicable to an additional tax on cigarettes imposed by the act of February 24, 1919, payment of which would have been treated in practice as evidenced by *1026the stamps already on the goods, if they had not been removed,, but which, in view of their removal, took the form of a “floor tax.”

March 23, 1925.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          58,851
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             887
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                84,139
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    324,053
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         165,427
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           175,543
<LOANS>                                      1,665,700
<ALLOWANCE>                                     23,125
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,374,115
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,942,204
<SHORT-TERM>                                    75,509
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             25,354
<LONG-TERM>                                     95,833
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,609
<OTHER-SE>                                     219,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,374,115
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                111,588
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               22,939
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,150
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               136,676
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              59,607
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,106
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           70,571
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,813
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 146
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 45,746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,175
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      35,175
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,628
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.51
<LOANS-NON>                                     12,723
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,587
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                21,148
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,875
<RECOVERIES>                                       338
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               23,125
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            23,125
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 31, 2021

NO. 03

- 20

- 00127

- CV

Sandra Tobias and Aaron R. Tobias , Appellant s

v.

Joseph David Marks , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIE F JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND KELLY

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment signe d by the tr i a l court on January 16, 2020

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. A ppellant s sha ll pay all

c osts relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
§ 8.12 Payment of the cash value of National Service Life Insurance in monthly installments under section 1917(e) of title 38 U.S.C. ( a ) Effective January 1, 1971, in lieu of payment of the cash surrender value in one sum the insured may elect to receive payment in monthly installments under option 2 or as a refund life income. If the insured dies before the agreed number of monthly installments have been paid, the remaining unpaid monthly installments will be payable as provided in title 38 U.S.C. 1917. Unless otherwise requested by the insured, a surrender under this section will be deemed completed as of the premium month in which the application for cash surrender is delivered to the Department of Veterans Affairs, or as of the date of the first check released thereunder, whichever is later.
( b ) [Reserved]
[36 FR 4384, Mar. 5, 1971. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 29290, 29292, June 10, 1996. Redesignated at 65 FR 7437, Feb. 15, 2000]
#### Rebecca KING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DREXEL BURNHAM LAMBERT, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 85-1717.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 28, 1986.

Edward S. Koppman, Patricia A. Nolan, Debra Griffin, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Dallas, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

*60Cheryl Milkes Jerome, Richard M. Hunt, Glast, Ungerman, Vickers, Miller & Allen, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GEE and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges, and HARVEY *, District Judge.

*

**District Judge of the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

GEE, Circuit Judge:

Rebecca King established a brokerage account with Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. (“DBL”) in 1982. When she did so, she agreed that any controversy arising out of the DBL’s handling of her account would be settled by arbitration. King later became dissatisfied with DBL’s performance and filed suit in the district court alleging violations of both federal and state law in the handling of her account. In response DBL filed an answer and a motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings pending arbitration.

The district court granted in part and denied in part DBL’s motion; the court stayed all state claims and ordered arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement, but declined to compel arbitration of King’s claim under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). DBL appeals the court’s refusal to compel arbitration of the 1934 Act claims.

The rule in this Circuit is clear: The doctrine of *Wilko v. Swan,*346 U.S. 427, 74 S.Ct. 182, 98 L.Ed. 168 (1958), which holds that any agreement to arbitrate claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 is invalid, is equally applicable to claims arising under the Exchange Act of 1934. *Sawyer v. Raymond, James & Associates, Inc.,*642 F.2d 791, 792 (5th Cir.1981), citing *Sibley v. Tandy Corp.,*543 F.2d 540, 543 (5th Cir.1976) cert denied 434 U.S. 824, 98 S.Ct. 71, 54 L.Ed.2d 82 (1977). The Supreme Court, in its most recent examination of the relevant arbitration principles, expressly declined to pass on the merits of our Circuit’s rule. *Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd,*470 U.S. 213, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 84 L.Ed.2d 158 (1985) at n. 5. Our decisions in *Sawyer*and *Sibley*retain their full precedential authority, authority we are obliged to follow. *Smoky Greenhaw Cotton Co. v. Morrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc.,*785 F.2d 1274, 1275 n. 1 (5th Cir.1986).

Given the rule of this Circuit, the district court’s denial of the Motion to Compel Arbitration of the 1934 Act claims was correct. We therefore AFFIRM the ruling of the court below and DISMISS the interlocutory appeal.
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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 27, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Mintz, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



/s/ David Mintz *
-----------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
Date:  August 11, 2009


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 49894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23408]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Polar Programs; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Polar Programs (1130).
    Date/Time:

November 9, 2009, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
November 10, 2009, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
1235.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Sue LaFratta, Office of Polar Programs (OPP). 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230. (703) 292-8030.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To advise NSF on the impact of its policies, 
programs, and activities on the polar research community, to provide 
advice to the Director of OPP on issues related to long-range 
planning.
    Agenda: Staff presentations and discussion on opportunities and 
challenges for polar research, education and infrastructure; 
discussion of Committee of Visitors meetings; transformative 
research.

    Dated: September 24, 2009.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-23408 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
§ 42.38 Reconsideration of initial decision. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the initial decision within 20 days of receipt of the initial decision. If service was made by mail, receipt will be presumed to be five days from the mailing in the absence of contrary proof.
( b ) Every motion must set forth the matters claimed to have been erroneously decided and the nature of the alleged errors. The motion shall be accompanied by a supporting brief.
( c ) Responses to the motions shall be allowed only upon request of the ALJ.
( d ) No party may file a motion for reconsideration of an initial decision that has been revised in response to a previous motion for reconsideration.
( e ) The ALJ may dispose of a motion for reconsideration by denying it or by issuing a revised initial decision.
( f ) If the ALJ denies a motion for reconsideration, the initial decision shall constitute the final decision of the Secretary and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after the ALJ denies the motion, unless the initial decision is timely appealed to the Secretary in accordance with § 42.39 of this part.
( g ) If the ALJ issues a revised initial decision, that decision shall constitute the final decision of the Secretary and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after it is issued, unless it is timely appealed to the Secretary in accordance with § 42.39 of this part.