alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008052EN.01002201.xml

| 26.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/22

---

Lifting by France of the public service obligations imposed in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 in respect of scheduled air services operated between Angoulême and Lyon, Épinal and Paris, Grenoble and Paris, Montpellier and Bordeaux, Montpellier and Nice and Montpellier and Strasbourg

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 52/07)

France has decided to lift the public service obligations imposed in respect of scheduled air services operated between:

| 1. | Angoulême and Lyon, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 258 of 28 October 2003 and amended in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 27 of 30 January 2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Angoulême and Lyon, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 258 of 28 October 2003 and amended in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 27 of 30 January 2004;

Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

| 2. | Épinal and Paris, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 123 of 26 April 1996 and amended in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 395 of 18 December 1998 and in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 22 of 27 January 2004; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Épinal and Paris, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 123 of 26 April 1996 and amended in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 395 of 18 December 1998 and in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 22 of 27 January 2004;

Official Journal of the European Communities

Official Journal of the European Communities

Official Journal of the European Union

| 3. | Grenoble and Paris, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 149 of 21 June 2005; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Grenoble and Paris, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 149 of 21 June 2005;

Official Journal of the European Union

| 4. | Montpellier and Bordeaux, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 123 of 26 April 1996; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Montpellier and Bordeaux, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 123 of 26 April 1996;

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 5. | Montpellier and Nice, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 123 of 26 April 1996; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Montpellier and Nice, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 123 of 26 April 1996;

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 6. | Montpellier and Strasbourg, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 123 of 26 April 1996. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Montpellier and Strasbourg, published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 123 of 26 April 1996.

Official Journal of the European Communities

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1752]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses; 
Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Research Advisory 
Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses will meet on April 24-25, 
2007, in room 230 at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public and 
it will start at 8 a.m. each day. The meeting will adjourn at 5 p.m. on 
April 24 and at 3 p.m. on April 25.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make 
recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on proposed 
research studies, research plans and research strategies relating to 
the health consequences of military service in the Southwest Asia 
theater of operations during the Gulf War.
    The Committee will review VA program activities relating to Gulf 
War veterans' illnesses and updates on relevant scientific research 
published since the last Committee meeting. Additionally, there will be 
presentations and discussion of background information on the Gulf War 
and Gulf War veterans' illnesses, mechanisms potentially underlying 
chronic symptoms affecting Gulf War veterans, and discussion of 
Committee business and activities. The Committee will also discuss the 
recommendations to be included in its 2007 report.
    The meeting will include time reserved for public comments. A sign-
up sheet for five-minute comments will be available at the meeting. 
Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary of their 
comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official 
meeting record. Members of the public may also submit written 
statements for the Committee's review to Dr. Lea Steele, RAC-Gulf War 
Veterans' Illnesses (T-GW), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2200 
SW. Gage Blvd., Topeka, KS 66622.
    Any member of the public seeking additional information should 
contact Dr. William Goldberg, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 254-
0294, or Dr. Steele, Scientific Director, at (785) 350-3111, ext. 
54617.

    Dated: April 3, 2007.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-1752 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
# C_2008184EN.01000901.xml

| 22.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/9

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4731 — Google/DoubleClick

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2008/C 184/05)

On 21 September 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking Google Inc. (‘Google’, USA) would acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking DoubleClick Inc. (‘DoubleClick’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.

1

Upon examination of the notification, the Commission concluded that the notified operation raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the notified acquisition with the common market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement with regard to the market for online advertising. The Commission also found that the commitments proposed by the notifying party on 19 October 2007 were not sufficient to clearly rule out the serious doubts identified by the Commission during the phase I investigation. Accordingly, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation on 13 November 2007.

Access to key documents was provided to the notifying party on 16, 19 and 20 November 2007, in accordance with paragraph 45 of DG Competition's Best Practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings.

On the basis of the additional evidence gathered during the phase II investigation, the Commission concluded that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part thereof and is therefore compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the notifying party.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the parties or any third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 3 March 2008.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.1126 Discharge of NLS residue from a slop tank to the sea: Categories A, B, C, and D. NLS residue in a slop tank may not be discharged into the sea unless— ( a ) The ship meets the conditions for discharging the NLS residue from a cargo tank in § 153.1128; and
( b ) For Category B NLS residue transferred to the slop tank under § 153.1119(b), the NLS is discharged— ( 1 ) Through an NLS residue discharge system with the flow recording equipment required in § 153.481(b)(2) operating; and
( 2 ) At a rate maintained at or below Q in the following:
For tank contents that are miscible For tank contents that are immiscible Q = KU1.4 L1.6 × 10−5 m3/hr where: Q = maximum permissible slops discharge rate in cubic meters per hour. V = volume of slops in the tank in cubic meters. K = 4.3, except K = 6.45 if Q is distributed between two NLS residue discharge outlets on opposite sides of the ship (see §§ 153.470(c) and 153.481(b)). U = ship's speed in knots. L = ship's length in meters. N = number of tanks containing Category B NLS residue pumped into the slop tank.
§ 119.410 General requirements. ( a ) Each starting motor, generator, and spark producing device must be mounted as high above the bilges as practicable.
( b ) Gauges to indicate engine revolutions per minute (RPM), jacket water discharge temperature, and lubricating oil pressure must be provided for all propulsion engines installed in the vessel. The gauges must be readily visible at the operating station.
( c ) In systems and applications where flexible hoses are permitted to be clamped: ( 1 ) Double hose clamping is required on each end of the hose, where practicable, except that one hose clamp can be used if the pipe ends are expanded or beaded to provide a positive stop against hose slippage;
( 2 ) The clamps must be of a corrosion resistant metallic material; and
( 3 ) The clamps must not depend on spring tension for their holding power.
- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KHETAM NIMER, an individual,

and MONA HAMED, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 14-13689

v.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

ADAM TOURS OF NEW YORK, INC.,

a corporation,

Defendant.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 61)

Before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the scheduling order by 

120 days, which Defendant opposes. The parties agreed to a scheduling 

order, which was issued on October 14, 2021. Given the lack of complexity 

of this dispute, the order allowed a generous period for discovery, over 

fourteen months. See ECF No. 59 (joint discovery plan). During that time, 

Plaintiffs did not pursue discovery, reflecting a lengthy pattern of delay in 

prosecuting this case. See ECF No. 26, 29, 31, 34, 50.

As a result of Plaintiffs’ clear lack of diligence, the court finds that 

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause to amend the scheduling 

Case 2:14-cv-13689-GCS-DRG ECF No. 63, PageID.536 Filed 01/11/23 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). In light of the age of this case, any

further delay in resolving this matter on the merits will prejudice Defendant.

Therefore, the court is not inclined to adjourn the trial date, currently set for

May 9, 2023. However, the court will grant the parties an extension until

February 10, 2023, to complete discovery. All other dates will remain as

scheduled and no further adjournments will be granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 61) is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

Dated: January 11, 2023 

s/George Caram Steeh

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on 

January 11, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Brianna Sauve

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:14-cv-13689-GCS-DRG ECF No. 63, PageID.537 Filed 01/11/23 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32




                                  CERTIFICATION

By signing below, each of the undersigned  officers hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge,  (i) this report fully complies with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the  information  contained  in this  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of Lincoln
Bancorp.

Signed this 12th day of November 2004.



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER:                  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER:



/s/ John M. Baer                          /s/ T. Tim Unger
-------------------------------------     --------------------------------------
John M. Baer                              T. Tim Unger
Secretary and Treasurer                   President and Chief Executive Officer





A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required  by Section  906,  has been  provided  to Lincoln  Bancorp  and will be
retained  by Lincoln  Bancorp  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered May 6, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00448-CV

No. 05-19-00449-CV

IN RE TIMOTHY A. FOLEY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-52915-Y & F11-00194-Y

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s April 18, 2019 petition for 

writ of mandamus.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
From: Nizich, Sharon

Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 2:35 PM

To: 'Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov'

Cc: Barnett, Keith

Subject: EO 12866_Brick Clay 2060_AP69 Final Submittal Addendum 1

Hello Aaron

It has come to my attention that we have two changes to bring to your attention. One is on page

236 of the final rule which is just some language that needs to match the reg text, and the other is

final language revision in section 6 that did not get into the RIA this morning (no estimates

changed). When I receive the RIA corrected final I will send both documents to you. Very sorry for

the confusion.

Sharon Nizich

Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA/OAR/OAQPS

Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD)

10 9 TW Alexander Dr. (D243

- 04)

RTP, NC 27711

(919) 541

- 2825
Editorial Note on Part 147
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 147 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59782, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 147.40 Materials requiring Commandant (CG-ENG) approval. ( a ) Commandant (CG-ENG) approval is required before the following hazardous materials may be on board a vessel as ships' stores: ( 1 ) Poison gases of Class 2, Division 2.3 and toxic liquids of Class 6, Division 6.1 which are poisonous by inhalation in Hazard Zone A.
( 2 ) Explosives of Divisions 1.1 or 1.2.
( 3 ) Flammable gases, other than those addressed specifically in this subpart.
( 4 ) Forbidden materials listed in 49 CFR 172.101.
( b ) Request for approval must be submitted to the Commandant (CG-ENG), identify the material, and explain the need for its use.
( c ) Upon approval, the material is added to the list of materials approved under this section. A copy of this list is available from the Commandant (CG-ENG) at the address in § 147.5.
[CGD 84-044, 53 FR 7749, Mar. 10, 1988, as amended by CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 19955; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50731, Sept. 27, 1996; CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51048, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60154, Sept. 30, 2013; USCG-2021-0348, 87 FR 3225, Jan. 21, 2022]
#### § 112.50-5 Electric starting.

An electric starting system must have a starting battery with sufficient capacity for at least six consecutive starts. A second, separate source of starting energy may provide three of the required six starts. If a second source is provided, the electrical starting system need only provide three consecutive starts.

[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28288, June 4, 1996]
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1817 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 116 North West Street in Somerville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘John S. Wilder Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1817 EH

1 SECTION 1. JOHN S. WILDER POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 116 North West Street in Somer4 ville, Tennessee, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘John S. Wilder Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John S. Wilder Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 4, 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1817 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. Somerville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘John S. Wilder al Service located at 116 North West Street in
2:14-cv-14155-NGE-EAS Doc # 10 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 125
2:14-cv-14155-NGE-EAS Doc # 10 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 126
2:14-cv-14155-NGE-EAS Doc # 10 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 127
2:14-cv-14155-NGE-EAS Doc # 10 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 128
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

WILDFIRE CREDIT UNION, 

 Counter-Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-14359 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

FISERV, INC., a/k/a FISERV SOLUTIONS, INC., 

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, 

and 

OPEN SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

 Counter-Plaintiff. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER CLARIFYING PORTION OF FEBRUARY 19, 2016 OPINION AND STRIKING 

DOCUMENT 

 On February 19, 2016, the Court issued an opinion and order denying Plaintiff Wildfire 

Credit Union’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The opinion concluded that, for the 

purposes of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), counterclaimants, Fiserv, Inc., 

and Open Solutions, LLC, have standing to enforce the Master Agreement between the parties. 

Additionally, Wildfire’s claim that it did not owe an accelerated maintenance fee under the 

Master Agreement was, for purposes of its Rule 12(c) motion, meritless. 

 On February 23, 2016, Fiserv sought clarification of one sentence in the opinion: “There 

can be no reasonable argument, especially at the Rule 12 stage, that the Master Agreement 

incorporates the DNA Software Schedule.” It made this request because it believed the sentence 

to be inconsistent with the rest of the opinion. It also made the request by filing written 

correspondence on the docket. Fiserv’s request will be stricken from the docket because it is not 

Case 1:14-cv-14359-TLL-PTM ECF No. 56 filed 02/26/16 PageID.1333 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

a pleading and correspondence is not properly filed on the docket. The clarification it seeks will 

be provided, however. The sentence in question should more clearly be read as stating: “There 

can be no reasonable argument, especially at the Rule 12 stage, about the fact that the Master 

Agreement incorporates the DNA Software Schedule.” The February 19, 2016 Opinion will be 

amended to reflect that change. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the sixth sentence on page 9 of the February 19, 2016 

Opinion, ECF No. 54, is AMENDED to read: 

There can be no reasonable argument, especially at the Rule 12 stage, about the 

fact that the Master Agreement incorporates the DNA Software Schedule. 

 It is further ORDERED that the correspondence filed on the docket by Counterclaimants 

Fiserv and Open Solutions, ECF No. 55, is STRICKEN. 

 

Dated: February 26, 2016 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on February 26, 2016. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

Case 1:14-cv-14359-TLL-PTM ECF No. 56 filed 02/26/16 PageID.1334 Page 2 of 2
# Senate Floor Activity - Tuesday, March 12, 2024

**

----

## The Journal

## Certain Procedures Dispensed With

## Transaction of Morning Business

## Legislative Business (Tuesday, March 12)

 H.R. 2882

 S.Amdt. 1693

 S. 50

 S.Amdt. 1694

 S. 1189

 S.Amdt. 1691

 S. 1194

 S.Amdt. 1692

 S.Res. 587

## Executive Business (Tuesday, March 12)

 PN738

91

 PN1241

 PN1403

89

90

 PN1404

87

88

 PN1406

86

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1671

___________

Billy Tyler, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Environmental Protection Agency, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 23, 2011

Filed: August 29, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Billy Tyler appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claim under the

1

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act against

the Environmental Protection Agency. After careful de novo review, see Moore v.

Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000), we conclude that the court properly

dismissed the claim because Tyler failed to allege that he had provided written notice

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Nebraska.
to the EPA of his intent to sue, as CERCLA requires, see 42 U.S.C. § 9659(a)(2),

even after he was allowed to amend his complaint to cure this defect. Accordingly,

the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-