alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013129EN.01001702.xml

| 4.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Andersen v Commission

(Case T-92/11) (1)

1

(State aid - Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking DSB - Public service contracts for the supply of passenger rail transport services between Copenhagen and Ystad - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to conditions - Temporal application of rules of substantive law)

2013/C 129/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Nissen, G. van de Walle de Ghelcke and J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent, assisted by K. Lundgaard Hansen and R. Holdgaard, lawyers); and by Danske Statsbaner (DSB) (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08)) (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08)); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08));

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Jørgen Andersen, with the exception of those arising from the interventions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Jørgen Andersen, with the exception of those arising from the interventions;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention;

| 4. | Orders Danske Statsbaner (DSB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Danske Statsbaner (DSB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.

1

---
#### Alonzo Rozier, *Appellant, v.*The Buffalo, New York and Philadelphia Railway Company, *Respondent*.

Judgment reversed, and another trial ordered before another referee, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL ERICKSEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15-CV-10088

v. HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

JOHN DOE, #1, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER TO STRIKE

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim this Bivens action

arising out of plaintiff’s search and seizure at the United States’ border with Canada as a

result of which Customs and Border Protection officers found marijuana and drug

paraphernalia in plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendants’ brief in support of their motion to dismiss

is 20 pages. Plaintiff filed a 93 page response without leave of court to file a brief in excess

of 25 pages as provided for in Local Rule 7.1(d)(3). Given the length of the government’s

brief, it does not appear that plaintiff is entitled to a page extension. Because plaintiff lacks

leave of court to file a brief in excess of the page limit, plaintiff’s response (Doc. 16) is

STRICKEN. Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time to file a response which comports

with the 25 page limit which shall be filed on or before May 14, 2015.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:15-cv-10088-GCS-MJH Doc # 17 Filed 04/28/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 226
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

April 28, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:15-cv-10088-GCS-MJH Doc # 17 Filed 04/28/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 227
# C_2015198EN.01002702.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission

(Case T-470/11) (1)

1

((Competition - Market for methacrylates - Fines - Joint and several liability of parent companies and their subsidiary for the infringing conduct of the latter - Full and immediate payment of the fine by the subsidiary - Reduction of the fine imposed on the subsidiary following a judgment of the General Court - Letters from the Commission demanding payment from the parent companies of the amount reimbursed by it to the subsidiary, plus late-payment interest - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Interest on late payment))

(2015/C 198/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) and Elf Aquitaine SA (Courbevoie) (represented initially by A. Noël-Baron and É. Morgan de Rivery, and subsequently by É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and V. Bottka, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s letters BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s746396 of 24 June 2011 and BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s812886 of 8 July 2011 or, in the alternative, reduction of the amounts claimed or, in the further alternative, annulment the late-payment interest imposed on Elf Aquitaine, in the amount of EUR 3 1 3 12  114,58, for which Total is jointly liable up to the amount of EUR 1 9 1 91  296,03.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission’s letters BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s746396 of 24 June 2011 and BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s812886 of 8 July 2011 in so far as, in those letters, the European Commission imposed on Elf Aquitaine SA late-payment interest in the amount of EUR 3 1 3 12  114,58, for which Total SA is jointly liable up to the amount of EUR 1 9 1 91  296,03; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission’s letters BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s746396 of 24 June 2011 and BUDG/DGA/C4/BM/s812886 of 8 July 2011 in so far as, in those letters, the European Commission imposed on Elf Aquitaine SA late-payment interest in the amount of EUR 3 1 3 12  114,58, for which Total SA is jointly liable up to the amount of EUR 1 9 1 91  296,03;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay two fifths of the costs of Total and Elf Aquitaine and to bear three fifths of its own costs. Total and Elf Aquitaine are ordered to bear three fifths of their own costs and to pay two fifths of the costs of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay two fifths of the costs of Total and Elf Aquitaine and to bear three fifths of its own costs. Total and Elf Aquitaine are ordered to bear three fifths of their own costs and to pay two fifths of the costs of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.

1

---
## Martin , Michae l (OST) DOT-OSTT'SLOCDQ ^ VV^ : 5^ ) From : Matthe w Misurd a [mmisurda@conncast.net ] Sent : . . . ' Thursday , Apri l 22,201 0 10:2 3 A M To : EA S (OST ) Subject : Commute rServic e fo rJohnstown/Cambri a County , P A Airpor t Pleas e conside rretainin g Colga n Ai ras th e commute rprovide rfo rth e Johnstown/Cambri a County , P A Airport . I t i s essentia l t o th e economi c developmen t o f Greate rJohnstow n tha t w e hav e a servic e tha t offer s earl yan d lat e da yflight s t o Dulle s fo rbusines s purposes , as wel l as othe rimportan t travel . Hopefull yi n th e nea rfutur e flight s ca n b e adde d t o Pittsburg h fo rth e sam e reason s an d als o t o improv e o n ou rfin e qualit yo f lif e i n Johnstown . Than k you . Rev . Matthe w Misurd a

C"~ 3
Don Bell Jr , Section 333 Exemption Petition

January 13 2016

1101 Springfield Rd

East Peoria Il 61611

Seeking : Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations from 14 C.F.R.45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b) 

(2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 119.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1); 91.409(a) (2); 

91.417(a)&(b)

To Whom It May Concern:

I, Don Bell Jr, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and the 

procedures in 14 C.F.R. 11, to request that I, Don Bell Jr, may operate my small unmanned aircraft 

systems (UAS) in commercially regulated airspace by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Sincerely,

Don Bell Jr

1101 Springfield rd

East Peoria Il 61611

Gtr86@aol.com
#### § 14.211 Posting of copy of shipping articles.

On commencement of a foreign, intercoastal, or coastwise voyage (including a voyage on the Great Lakes), each master or individual in charge of a vessel when shipping articles are required must ensure that a legible copy of the articles, unsigned by the mariner, and without the next of kin information, is posted at a place accessible to the crew.

[CGD 94-004, 61 FR 56637, Nov. 4, 1996, as amended by USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77999, Dec. 24, 2013; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58279, Sept. 29, 2014]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 21, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 67359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9300]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI K's, R24's and R34's.
    Date: December 8, 2006.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military 
Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.
    Contact Person: Samuel Rawlings, PhD, Chief, Scientific Review 
Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, 
5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 9300, Bethesda, MD 20892-9300, 
301-451-2020, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1b3a0b6ada8afa6b281afa4a8efafa8a9efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9bba8bea5a0a7aeba89a7aca0e7a7a0a1e7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 15, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-9300 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Annual Report of PowerHouse Technologies Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jay Elliot, Director and Chief Executive 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 to 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Jay Elliot
----------------------------------------------------------
Jay Elliot,
Chairman of the Board Director and Chief Executive Officer
July 14, 2004
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.050-9 Test report. ( a ) A report of approval testing must contain the following: ( 1 ) Name of the testing facility.
( 2 ) Name of the applicant.
( 3 ) Date of receiving the item for testing and the dates of the tests conducted.
( 4 ) Trade name and brief description of the item.
( 5 ) A listing of the following properties of the test oils used: ( i ) Relative density at 15 °C.
( ii ) Viscosity in centistokes at 37.8 °C.
( iii ) Flashpoint.
( iv ) Weight of ash content.
( v ) Weight of water content.
( vi ) Relative density at 15 °C. the of water used during testing and the weight of solid content in the water.
( vii ) The data recorded during each test.
( 6 ) A statement that the lab followed the testing procedures prescribed in 46 CFR subpart 162.050.
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGD 76-088a, 44 FR 53359, Sept. 13, 1979, as amended by USCG-2004-18939, 74 FR 3383, Jan. 16, 2009]
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

      This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Form
10-QSB") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").

      I, Jose' A. Infante, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Issuer, certify that:

      (i)   the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
            U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

      (ii)  the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

Dated: May 14, 2004

                                         /s/ Jose' A. Infante
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Jose' A. Infante
                                         Chairman, President and Chief Executive
                                         Officer
**Exhibit31.3**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Richard J. Koll, certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of MV Partners, LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  April2, 2007
|        | By:    | /s/ Richard J. Koll                        |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Richard J. Koll                            |
|   | Title: | Principal Accounting and Financial Officer |

 

----
#### § 167.45-70 Portable fire extinguishers, general requirements.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76706, Sept. 18, 2024.

(a) Extra charges shall be carried on board for 50 percent of each size and variety of fire extinguishers provided. If 50 percent of each size and variety of fire extinguishers carried gives a fractional result, extra charges shall be provided for the next largest whole number.

(1) The following is an example:

| Fire extinguishers carried: | Extra charges required |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 5 | 3 |

(2) When the portable fire extinguisher is of such variety that it cannot be readily recharged by the vessel's personnel, one spare unit of the same classification shall be carried in lieu of spare charges for all such units of the same size and variety.

(b) Recharges, particularly the acid, used in charging soda-and-acid type of fire extinguishers, shall be packed in such manner that the filling operation (*i.e.*, in recharging the extinguisher) can be performed without subjecting the person doing the recharging to undue risk of acid burns and shall be contained in Crown stopper type of bottle.

(c) [Reserved]

(d) Fire extinguishers shall be located in such places as in the judgment of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, will be most convenient and serviceable in case of emergency and so arranged that they may be easily removed from their fastenings.

(e) Every fire extinguisher provided shall be examined at each annual inspection to determine that it is still in good condition. Soda-and-acid and foam fire extinguishers shall be tested by discharging the contents, cleaning thoroughly, and then refilling. Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers shall be checked by weighing to determine contents and if found to be more than 10 percent under required contents of carbon dioxide shall be recharged. Pump tank fire extinguishers shall be tested by pumping and discharging the contents, cleaning thoroughly, and then refilling or recharging. Cartridge-operated type fire extinguishers shall be checked by examining the extinguishing agents to determine if in still good condition and by examining the pressure cartridge. If the cartridge end is punctured, or it the cartridge is otherwise determined to have leaked or to be in an unsuitable condition, the pressure cartridge shall be rejected and a new one inserted. Stored pressure type extinguishers shall be checked by determining that the pressure gage is in the operating range, and the full charge of extinguishing agent is in the chamber. The hoses and nozzles of all fire extinguishers shall be inspected to see that they are clear and in good condition.

[CGFR 51-11, 16 FR 3218, Apr. 12, 1951, as amended by CGFR 54-46, 19 FR 8708, Dec. 18, 1954; CGFR 59-21, 24 FR 7196, Sept. 5, 1959; CGFR 60-17, 25 FR 2667, Mar. 30, 1960; CGFR 62-17, 27 FR 9047, Sept. 11, 1962]