alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 170.295 Special consideration for free surface of passive roll stabilization tanks. ( a ) The virtual increase in the vertical center of gravity due to a liquid in a roll stabilization tank may be calculated in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section if— ( 1 ) The virtual increase in the vertical center of gravity of the vessel is calculated in accordance with § 170.285(a); and
( 2 ) The slack surface in the roll stabilization tank is reduced during vessel motions because of the shape of the tank or the amount of liquid in the tank.
( b ) The virtual rise in the vertical center of gravity calculated in accordance with § 170.285(a) for a stabilization tank may be reduced in accordance with the following equation: E.F.S. = (K)(F.F.S.) where— E.F.S. = the effective free surface. F.F.S. = the full free surface calculated in accordance with § 170.285(a). K = the reduction factor calculated in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) The factor (K) must be calculated as follows: ( 1 ) Plot (I/d)tan T on Graph 170.295 where— ( i ) (I) is the moment of inertia of the free surface in the roll tank;
( ii ) (d) is the density of the liquid in the roll tank; and
( iii ) (T) is the angle of heel.
( 2 ) Plot the moments of transference of the liquid in the roll tank on Graph 170.295.
( 3 ) Construct a line A on Graph 170.295 so that the area under line A between T = 0 and the angle at which the deck edge is immersed or 28 degrees, whichever is smaller, is equal to the area under the curve of actual moments of transference between the same angles.
( 4 ) The factor (K) is calculated by determining the ratio of the ordinate of line A to the ordinate of the curve of (I/d)tan T, both measured at the angle at which the deck edge is immersed or 28 degrees, whichever is smaller.
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 1 of 26 Pg ID 107
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 2 of 26 Pg ID 108
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 3 of 26 Pg ID 109
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 4 of 26 Pg ID 110
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 5 of 26 Pg ID 111
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 6 of 26 Pg ID 112
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 7 of 26 Pg ID 113
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 8 of 26 Pg ID 114
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 9 of 26 Pg ID 115
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 10 of 26 Pg ID 116
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 11 of 26 Pg ID 117
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 12 of 26 Pg ID 118
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 13 of 26 Pg ID 119
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 14 of 26 Pg ID 120
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 15 of 26 Pg ID 121
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 16 of 26 Pg ID 122
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 17 of 26 Pg ID 123
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 18 of 26 Pg ID 124
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 19 of 26 Pg ID 125
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 20 of 26 Pg ID 126
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 21 of 26 Pg ID 127
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 22 of 26 Pg ID 128
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 23 of 26 Pg ID 129
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 24 of 26 Pg ID 130
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 25 of 26 Pg ID 131
1:15-cv-10808-TLL-PTM Doc # 18 Filed 06/04/15 Pg 26 of 26 Pg ID 132
Exhibit 31.2

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Anthony P. Kiernan, the principal financial officer, certifythat:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofEvercel, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a)    designedsuch disclosure 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 consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosedin this 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 other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

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: November 18, 2003

 

/s/Anthony P. KiernanAnthony P. KiernanChief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**MWANGI SEKOU,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 35 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 29th day of May, 2015, the Application for Le ave to File Original** 

**Process is** GRANTED **, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is** DENIED

**.**
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2353 

To require electric utilities to notify electric consumers of the cost of emission 

allowances associated with the electricity delivered to such consumers, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2009 

Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, 

Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, and 

Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require electric utilities to notify electric consumers of 

the cost of emission allowances associated with the electricity delivered to such consumers, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EPA PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION. 

4 In carrying out any Federal greenhouse gas regu5 latory program that provides for the sale of emission al6 lowances in connection with an absolute limit on green7 house gas emissions, the Administrator of the EnvironVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:15 May 13, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2353.IH H2353

jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2353 IH

1 mental Protection Agency shall publish, on a monthly 

2 basis, the average cost per kilowatt hour of the emission 

3 allowances purchased by each person generating electricity 

4 for sale. In such publication, the Administrator shall pro5 vide an allocation of such costs, based on the generation 

6 sources, among the regions identified by the Administrator 

7 in which electric power is purchased and sold at wholesale. 

8 The Administrator shall consult with the Federal Energy 

9 Regulatory Commission and the Secretary of Energy in 

10 carrying out this section. 

11 SEC. 2. INFORMATION TO CONSUMERS. 

12 Section 115(f) of the Public Utility Regulatory Poli13 cies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2625(f)) is amended by add14 ing at the end the following new paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(4) For purposes of the standard for informa16 tion to consumers established by section 113(b)(3), 

17 each electric utility shall include in each billing 

18 statement transmitted to each electric consumer a 

19 statement of the portion of the rate charged to that 

20 consumer that represents the cost of emission allow21 ances purchased by the utility for the period covered 

22 by such billing statement. In the case of a utility 

23 purchasing electric energy in a region for which the 

24 Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

25 Agency has published the average cost per kilowatt 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2353 IH

1 hour of emission allowances associated with electric 

2 power sold in that region, the utility shall include 

3 the appropriate portion of such costs in each such 

4 billing statement. For purposes of adopting the 

5 standard under section 113(b)(3) as modified by this 

6 paragraph, the date 2 years after the date of the en7 actment of this paragraph shall be substituted for 

8 the 2-year period specified in section 113(a).’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
# C_2011194EN.01001802.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/18

---

Action brought on 26 April 2011 — Wall v OHIM — Bluepod Media Worldwide (bluepod media)

(Case T-227/11)

2011/C 194/30

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wall AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bluepod Media Worldwide Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Partially annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2011 in case R 301/2010-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Partially annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2011 in case R 301/2010-1; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘bluepod media’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6099709

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5660972 for the figurative mark ‘blue spot’, for services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 38; International trade mark registration No 880800 for the word mark ‘BlueSpot’, for services in classes 35, 37 and 38; German trade mark registration No 30472373 for the word mark ‘BlueSpot’, for services in classes 35, 37 and 38

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially allowed the appeal and partially rejected the application. Correspondingly, allowed the application in the remainder and partially rejected the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was no likelihood of confusion.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2011298EN.01002101.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/21

---

Action brought on 1 August 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM (Nutriskin Protection Complex)

(Case T-415/11)

2011/C 298/38

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by N. Aicher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2011 in Case R 1524/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2011 in Case R 1524/2010-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal procedure before OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal procedure before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Wordmark ‘Nutriskin Protection Complex’ for Goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Application for registration Number 8 995 086.

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Community trade mark application ‘Nutriskin Protection Complex’ in respect of the goods in Classes 3 and 5 is neither descriptive nor lacking in any distinctive character, because first the component ‘Nutriskin’ by reason of the unusual nature of the combination leads to a term, which creates no directly descriptive impression and because secondly the defendant did no more than infer the alleged lack of distinctive character from the descriptive significance of the registered trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
§ 188.05-35 Load lines—interpretive ruling. ( a ) Certificated vessels shall be subject to the applicable provisions of the Load Line Acts, and regulations in Subchapter E (Load Lines) of this chapter.
EXHIBIT 10.9


Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount by and between Longgang Division,
Shenzhen  Branch,  Agricultural  Bank of  China  and  Jilin  Provincial  Huaruan
Technology  Company Limited by Shares  ("Huaruan  Company") dated as of June 27,
2003.

         Huaruan  Company  signed a guaranty on June 27, 2003 in relation to the
Revolvable  Credit  Facilities  Agreement  (the  "Agreement")  as  summarized in
Exhibit  10.8.  As  guarantor,  Huaruan  Company  undertakes to assume joint and
several  responsibilities  for the  obligation of Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd.
under the Agreement,  subject to the maximum  security  amount of RMB 50,000,000
Yuan. The guaranty has a term of two (2) years,  commencing from the maturity of
the obligations of Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. under the Agreement.
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 Natural Nutrition, Inc., (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned 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 operation of the
      Company.




Date:August
                13, 2008
            By:
            /s/*Timothy
                J. Connolly*Name:
            Timothy
                J. ConnollyTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial
                Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, 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 the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                          Independent Auditors' Consent



The Board of Directors
AvTel Communications, Inc.


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-30725), (No. 333-53435), and (No. 333-64769) on Form S-8 of AvTel
Communications, Inc. of our report dated April 14, 1999, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of AvTel Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedule, for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report
appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of AvTel
Communications, Inc.


                                             /s/ KPMG LLP
                                             -------------
                                             KPMG LLP



Dallas, Texas
April 14, 1999
# C_2011269EN.01003503.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/35

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — SICAV GA Fund B v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

(Case C-346/11)

2011/C 269/72

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administratrif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SICAV GA Fund B

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

| 2. | If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?

---
#### § 201.103 Opportunity for agreement of parties and settlement of case.

Where time, the nature of the proceeding, and the public interest permit, all interested parties shall have the opportunity for submission to and consideration by the presiding officer of offers of settlement, or proposals of adjustment together with facts and/or arguments relevant to such offers or proposals without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The presiding officer need not be present at any negotiations of such nature. The presiding officer shall issue an initial or recommended decision thereon recommending approval or disapproval of such offer of settlement or proposal of adjustment to the Administration for final action thereon. No agreement, offer, or proposal shall be admissible in evidence over the objection of any party in any hearing on the matter. When any settlement does not dispose of the whole proceeding, the remaining issues shall be determined in accordance with sections 7 and 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Park Place Entertainment Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Harry C. Hagerty, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:



|Dated the 14th day of November 2002                                                                          |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/HARRY C. HAGERTY, IIIHarry C. Hagerty, III, Chief Financial Officer,
Park Place Entertainment Corporation |  | 

---

QuickLinks
# C_2011152EN.01003002.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/30

---

Action brought on 31 March 2011 — Seka Yapo and Others v Council

(Case T-192/11)

2011/C 152/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Anselme Seka Yapo (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire), Brouha Nathanaël Ahouma (Abidjan), Blé Brunot Dogbo (Abidjan), Gagbei Faussignaux Vagba (Abidjan), Georges Guiai Bi Poin (Abidjan), Affro (Abidjan), Kassaraté Tiapé (Abidjan) and Philippe Mangou (Abidjan) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, in so far as they concern the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, in so far as they concern the applicants;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and principal arguments relied on by the applicants are in essence identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.

Attey

Council

---