alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008312EN.01000501.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/5

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities

(2008/C 312/02)

Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) are hereby amended as follows:

1

2

Page 82

Page 82

The following text is added to the end of paragraph ‘1905’:

1905

‘This heading covers cocktail snacks ready for consumption in the form of e.g. dried peas or peanuts which are completely coated with dough if, because of its thickness and taste, the dough coating determines the essential character of the product.’

Page 84

Page 84

The following text is added after the title to Chapter 20 (PREPARATIONS OF VEGETABLES, FRUIT, NUTS OR OTHER PARTS OF PLANTS) and before ‘Note 4’:

PREPARATIONS OF VEGETABLES, FRUIT, NUTS OR OTHER PARTS OF PLANTS

Note 4

‘General

This Chapter covers snack-products ready for consumption in the form of e.g. dried peas or peanuts, which are only partially coated with dough and where the essential character of the product is consequently given by the vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants.’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 133, 30.5.2008, p. 1.

2

---
§ 116.820 Seating. ( a ) A seat must be provided for each passenger permitted in a space for which the fixed seating criterion in § 115.113(b)(3) of this subchapter has been used to determine the number of passengers permitted.
( b ) A seat must be constructed to minimize the possibility of injury and avoid trapping occupants.
( c ) Installation of seats must provide for ready escape.
( d ) Seats, including fixed, temporary, or portable seats, must be arranged as follows: ( 1 ) An aisle of not more than 3.8 meters (15 feet) in overall length must be not less than 610 millimeters (24 inches) in width.
( 2 ) An aisle of more than 3.8 meters (15 feet) in overall length must be not less than 760 millimeters (30 inches) in width.
( 3 ) Where seats are in rows, the distance from seat front to seat front must be not less than 760 millimeters (30 inches) and the seats must be secured to a deck or bulkhead.
( 4 ) Seats used to determined the number of passengers permitted, in accordance with § 115.113(b)(3) of this subchapter, must be secured to the deck, bulkhead, or bulwark.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 900, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51047, Sept. 30, 1997]
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13(a) or 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of IRIDEX Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this annual report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure control and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrants
internal control over financial reporting;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  By:
    /s/ JAMES H. MACKANESSName: James H. MackanessTitle: Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Michael R. Kallet, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Eric E. Stickels,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Oneida Financial Corp.
(the "Company"), each certify in his capacity as an officer of the Company that
he has reviewed the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2004 and that to the best of his/her knowledge:

(6)   the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(7)   the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


   November 12, 2004                       /s/  Michael R. Kallet
---------------------------                -------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


   November 12, 2004                       /s/ Eric E. Stickels
---------------------------                -------------------------------------
Date                                       Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer

                                  Exhibit 32.1
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

Theundersigned executive officer of First Federal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc.(the “Registrant”) hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
|                  | /s/ Sherri  R. Billings      |   |
|-----------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|                  | Sherri R.  Billings          |
|                  | EVP/Chief  Financial Officer |
|                  |                         |
| Date: March  21, 2003 |                         |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1747 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1747

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 2009

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To authorize appropriations for the design, acquisition, and 
     construction of a combined buoy tender-icebreaker to replace 
                icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes.

    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 ``Great Lakes Icebreaker Replacement 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) five of the Coast Guard's Great Lakes icebreakers are 
        nearing the end of their useful lives;
            (2) two other Coast Guard icebreaking assets have 
        experienced difficulty in heavy ice conditions;
            (3) during the spring of 2008, United States-flag vessels 
        operating on the Great Lakes suffered more than $1,300,000 in 
        damages to their hulls because the Coast Guard did not have 
        enough assets available to keep Great Lakes shipping lanes 
        open;
            (4) during the 2006-2007 ice season, shipments of iron ore, 
        coal, and limestone on the Great Lakes exceeded 20,000,000 
        tons;
            (5) during the 2006-2007 ice season, the transportation of 
        10,400,000 tons of iron ore on the Great Lakes helped support 
        100,000 jobs at steel mills and 300,000 jobs at supplier 
        industries by keeping those industries working during the 
        winter season; and
            (6) the 6,400,000 tons of coal shipped on the Great Lakes 
        during the 2006-2007 ice season kept the Great Lakes region 
        supplied with electricity.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated $153,000,000 for necessary 
expenses of the Coast Guard for the design, acquisition, and 
construction of a combined buoy tender-icebreaker to replace 
icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes, to remain available until 
expended.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 27, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1987

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 2:23

- cv

- 01640

- DMG

SHK

, Judge Dolly M. Gee.

______________________
O R D E R

The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) and to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for fai lure to prosecute in Case: 23-1987 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 08/15/2023C ALDERON L OPEZ V

. C OMMISSIONER OF S OCIAL S ECURITY 2

accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

August 15, 2023 Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 15, 2023 Case: 23-1987 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 08/15/2023
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO


MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS, INC.


(formerly
ovascience, inc)


2012
stock INCENTIVE plan


 


Whereas,
the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly OvaScience, Inc.) (the “Company”)
previously approved and adopted the 2012 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”);


 


Whereas,
the Board has delegated authority to the Compensation Committee of the Board (the “Committee”) to administer
the Plan;


 


Whereas,
the Committee has determined that it is in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan as set forth in this Amendment; and


 


Whereas,
the Committee has the authority to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 11(d) of the Plan.


 


Now,
Therefore, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.                  
Section 9(b)(2)(A) of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following to the end thereof:


 


“Notwithstanding
the foregoing, in the event of a Reorganization Event in which outstanding Awards are not assumed pursuant to Section 9(b)(2)(A)(i),
then the vesting and exercisability of any Awards that are subject to time-based vesting requirements will be accelerated in full
to a date prior to the effective time of such Reorganization Event (contingent upon the effectiveness of the Reorganization Event)
as the Board determines (or, if the Board does not determine such a date, to the date that is 15 days prior to the effective time
of the Reorganization Event). If an Award becomes fully vested and exercisable in lieu of assumption or substitution in the Reorganization
Event, the Board shall notify the impacted Participants in writing or electronically thereof, and Awards shall terminate if not
exercised (if applicable) at the effective time of the Reorganization Event (contingent upon the effectiveness of the Reorganization
Event).”


 


2.                  
All other terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.                  
Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.


 


I hereby certify that
the foregoing Amendment to the Plan was duly adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company as
of June 17, 2020.


  


	 	 
	 	/s/ Tamara Joseph
	 	Tamara Joseph
	 	General Counsel
§ 111.97-7 Distribution. ( a ) Each distribution panelboard for a watertight door system must be above the uppermost continuous deck and must have means for locking.
( b ) Each feeder supplying a watertight door operating system must be above the uppermost continuous deck.
( c ) Each watertight door operating system must have a separate branch circuit.
Exhibit 32.1

Certificate 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 Capitol City Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George G. Andrews, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ George G. AndrewsGeorge G. Andrews, Chief Executive Officerand Director 
August 19, 2011
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.

#### JOHN P. ARMSTRONG, PETITIONER, v. RAILWAY MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

Eor the petitioner, *McCarter & English.*

Eor the respondent, *Collins & Corbin.*

*i'fi i{i %*

That on October 10th, 1926, Barclay B. Armstrong was regularly employed by the above-named respondent at Millstone Junction, near New Brunswick, New Jersey, at a wage of $175 per month. On said date, said Barclay B. Armstrong, while in and about his work for the respondent, was struck and almost instantly killed by a railroad train at the above-mentioned place, said accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent. Those partially dependent upon him at the time of his death were his father, John P. Armstrong; his mother, Regina Armstrong, and a sister, who was over sixteen years of age at the time but who was unable to work. All of these people were part of decedent’s household at said time.

Said Barclay B. Armstrong had only worked fox the respondent for ten days prior to his death and as a result had not actually been paid by the respondent at all prior to his death. Eor five days prior to his working for respondent he had worked for the Pennsylvania railroad and had not *740been paid by this company either for that time prior to his death. His employment immediately prior to working for the railroad was on a golf course near his home in Newark, Delaware, and his wages in that employment were $100 a month, all of which wage he gave his mother toward the support of his father, his mother, his sister and himself. It is on this wage of $100 a month that the rate of compensation is fixed and with it as a basis and taking into consideration that the $100 a month included his own support, the rate of compensation is determined to be $6.92 per week, making the award for compensation in the case three hundred weeks at $6.92 a week to be paid the above-named petitioner for the dependents in this case. Euneral expenses amounted to over $150, therefore $150 is allowed the petitioner in accordance with the statute made and provided for the funeral expenses. A counsel fee of $100 is allowed the attorneys for the petitioner, to be paid by the respondent.

* * * ❖ * ❖

Charles E. Ookbin, *Deputy Commissioner.*
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Notice of Proposed Subsequent Arrangement. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice is being issued under the authority of Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed “subsequent arrangement” under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and Argentina and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and Brazil.

This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of two fission counters from the Instrumentation and Control Department, National Atomic Energy Commission, Argentina, to the IPEN/MB/01 Research Reactor, San Pablo, Brazil. The fission counters each contain .01 g U235. IPEN/MB/01 Research Reactor is authorized to receive nuclear material pursuant to the U.S.-Brazil Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and security.

This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than 15 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Dated: March 29, 2007.

For the Department of Energy.

Richard S. Goorevich,

Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements.

[FR Doc. 07-1666 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
# C_2011370EN.01001601.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 16 September 2011 — Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Csaba Csipai and Viktória Csipai

(Case C-472/11)

2011/C 370/26

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banif Plus Bank Zrt.

Applicant:

Defendant: Csaba Csipai, Viktória Csipai

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the procedures of a national court consistent with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) if, where a contract term is held to be unfair, and the parties did not submit a claim to that effect, the court informs them that it holds sentence 4 of clause 29 of the standard contract terms of the loan agreement between the parties to the proceedings to be invalid? That invalidity arises from breach of the legislation, namely Paragraph 1(1)(c) and (2)(j) of Government Decree 18/1999 on Unfair Contract Terms. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the procedures of a national court consistent with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) if, where a contract term is held to be unfair, and the parties did not submit a claim to that effect, the court informs them that it holds sentence 4 of clause 29 of the standard contract terms of the loan agreement between the parties to the proceedings to be invalid? That invalidity arises from breach of the legislation, namely Paragraph 1(1)(c) and (2)(j) of Government Decree 18/1999 on Unfair Contract Terms.

1

| 2. | In the circumstances of the first question, is it permissible for the court to direct the parties to the proceedings to make a statement in relation to the contract term in question, so that the legal implications of any unfairness may be established and so that the aims expressed in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC may be achieved? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the circumstances of the first question, is it permissible for the court to direct the parties to the proceedings to make a statement in relation to the contract term in question, so that the legal implications of any unfairness may be established and so that the aims expressed in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC may be achieved?

| 3. | In the circumstances described above, is it permissible for the court, when examining an unfair contract term, to examine all the terms of the contract, or may it examine only the terms on which the party concluding the contract with the consumer bases his claim? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the circumstances described above, is it permissible for the court, when examining an unfair contract term, to examine all the terms of the contract, or may it examine only the terms on which the party concluding the contract with the consumer bases his claim?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

1

---