alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 193.15-35 Enclosure openings. ( a ) Where mechanical ventilation is provided for spaces which are protected by carbon dioxide extinguishing systems provisions shall be made so that the ventilation system is automatically shut down with the operation of the system to that space.
( b ) Where natural ventilation is provided for spaces protected by a carbon dioxide extinguishing system, provisions shall be made for easily and effectively closing off the ventilation.
( c ) Means shall be provided for closing all other openings to the space protected from outside such space. In this respect, relatively tight doors, shutters, or dampers shall be provided for openings in the lower portion of the space. The construction shall be such that openings in the upper portion of the space can be closed off either by permanently installed means or by the use of canvas or other material which is normally carried by the vessel.
Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 1004, PageID.65557 Filed 10/26/22 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 1004, PageID.65558 Filed 10/26/22 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 1004, PageID.65559 Filed 10/26/22 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 1004, PageID.65560 Filed 10/26/22 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 1004, PageID.65561 Filed 10/26/22 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 1004, PageID.65562 Filed 10/26/22 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 1004, PageID.65563 Filed 10/26/22 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 1004, PageID.65564 Filed 10/26/22 Page 8 of 8
#### § 170.020 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

(a) *Purpose.* This section collects and displays the control numbers assigned to information collection and recordkeeping requirements in this subchapter by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*). The Coast Guard intends that this section comply with the requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3507(f), which requires that agencies display a current control number assigned by the OMB for each approved agency information collection requirement.

(b) *Display.*

| 46 CFR part— | Current OMB control No. |
| --- | --- |
| § 170.075 | 1625-0064 |
| § 170.080 | 1625-0064 |
| § 170.085 | 1625-0064 |
| § 170.090 | 1625-0064 |
| § 170.095 | 1625-0064 |
| § 170.100 | 1625-0064 |
| § 170.110 | 1625-0064 |
| § 170.120 | 1625-0064 |
| § 170.125 | 1625-0064 |
| § 170.135 | 1625-0064 |
| § 170.180 | 1625-0064 |

[CGD 89-037, 57 FR 41825, Sept. 11, 1992, as amended by USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58350, Sept. 30, 2004]
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 June 30, 2007 and that to the best of his/her
knowledge:

(1) the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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.

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.




    August 14, 2007                        /s/ Michael R. Kallet
---------------------------                -------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


     August 14, 2007                       /s/ Eric E. Stickels
---------------------------                -------------------------------------
Date                                       Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer



                                  Exhibit 32.1
# C_2013344EN.01003302.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/33

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — F. van der Helder, D. Farrington v College voor zorgverzekeringen

(Case C-321/12) (1)

1

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 28(2)(b) - Sickness insurance benefits - Entitlement to an old-age pension in several Member States - Residence in another Member State - Provision of benefits in kind in the State of residence - Burden of the cost of benefits - Member State ‘legislation’ to which the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time - Concept)

2013/C 344/57

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: F. van der Helder, D. Farrington

Applicants:

Defendant: College voor zorgverzekeringen

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 28(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Sickness insurance — Benefits for pensioners resident in a Member State other than that of the competent institution — Benefits to be paid by the institution of the Member State in which the person concerned has been covered for the longest period — Concept of ‘legislation [to which] the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time’

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that ‘legislation’ to which the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time, for the purpose of that provision, refers to legislation concerning pensions.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                        List of Subsidiaries of Issuer


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Percentage of Shares
                                                              Owned by Issuer
                                                           --------------------
<S>                                                        <C>
Micro-Filtration, Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                   100%
Numation  Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                            90%
Numatech Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                             88%
I.A.E. Incorporated; incorporated in Michigan                      100%
Ultra Air Products, Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                  80%
Microsmith, Inc.; incorporated in Arizona                           90%
Numatics B.V.; organized in the Netherlands                        100%
Numatics S.A. de C.V.; organized in Mexico                         100%
Numatics S.A.R.L.; organized in France                             100%
Numatics Ltd.; organized in the United Kingdom                     100%
Numatics Ltd.; organized in Canada                                 100%
NAC Beteilingungs GmbH; organized in Germany                       100%
Numatics GmbH; organized in Germany                                100%
Numatics K.F.T.; organized in Hungary                              100%
Numatics Ltd; organized in Taiwan                                   95%
Numatics S.R.L.; organized in Italy                                100%
Univer GmbH; organized in Germany                                  100%
Empire Air Systems, Inc.; incorporated in New York                 100%
</TABLE>
# C_2011211EN.01002702.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/27

---

Action brought on 9 May 2011 — Kaltenbach & Voigt v OHIM (3D eXam)

(Case T-242/11)

2011/C 211/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kaltenbach & Voigt GmbH (Biberach an der Riß, Germany) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2011 in case R 2361/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2011 in case R 2361/2010-2;

| — | 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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in words ‘3D eXam’ for goods in class 10

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the protection of the international registration to the European Union pursuant to Article 7(1)(b), (c) and Article 2 CTMR

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and the failure to take into account prior national registrations/grants of protection, as the International registration at issue: (i) is not purely descriptive, and; (ii) exhibits distinctiveness as the relevant public will consider the sign ‘3D eXam’ as an indication of trade origin.

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20514-20515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2042]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Missile Defense Advisory Committee (MDAC)

AGENCY: Department of Defense; Missile Defense Agency (MDA)/

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Missile Defense Advisory Committee will meet in closed 
session on May 3-4, 2007, in Washington, DC.
    The mission of the Missile Defense Advisory Committee is to provide 
the Department of Defense advice on all matters relating to missile 
defense, including system development, technology, program maturity and 
readiness of configurations of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 
(BMDS) to enter the acquisition process. At this meeting, the Committee 
will receive classified briefings by

[[Page 20515]]

intelligence officials concerning estimated future developments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: COL David R. Wolf, Designated Federal 
Official (DFO) at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4024213629246e372f2c26002d24216e2d292c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94f0f5e2fdf0bae3fbf8f2d4f9f0f5baf9fdf8">[email protected]</span></a>, phone/voice mail (703) 695-6438, 
or mail at 7100 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-7100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(d) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. 
App. II), it has been determined that this Missile Defense Advisory 
Committee meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and 
that, accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: April 18, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Office, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-2042 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Hematopoietic Cell Transportation and Immune Tolerance.                    

*Date:*                         May 29, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 3136, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mercy R. Prabhudas, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-2615,                         *mp547nh@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: April 25, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-2151 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank of Buffalo v. Sprague.

*Pleading—payment after suit commenced.*

Payment after suit commenced should be set up by way of supplemental answer and not by way of amendment.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon the verdict of a jury and from an order denying a new trial. '

The action was brought by the plaintiff above named against Phineas W. Sprague and another to recover the amount of a draft alleged to be unpaid.

*John C. Strong,*for appellant.

*Edward D. McCarthy,*for respondents.

Gilbert, J.

The principal question was one of fact and the only point passed upon in the opinion is stated in the head-note.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### GEORGE P. ROBERTS AND EVA V. ROBERTS, RESPONDENTS, v. THE C. R. REALTY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, APPELLANT.

Submitted January term, 1929

Decided July 3, 1929.

Before Justices Teenchakd, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the appellant, *Anthony Armore (Nicholas S. Schloeder,*of counsel).

For the respondents, *Gliedt <& Wienche.*

*596Per Curiam.

This was an action in the District Court of Hudson county to recover a deposit of $500, made under an agreement for the purchase of real estate. The case was heard by the judge, sitting without a jury. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals.

The specifications of error are that the court erroneously denied a motion for nonsuit, and that it erred in its finding against the defendant on the facts.

We think the motion for'nonsuit should have been granted. Prom the state of the case it appears that there was a written contract calling for closing title on December 31st, 1927, at which time the vendor was to deliver a full covenant and warranty deed, free from all encumbrances, except a building and loan mortgage which the plaintiffs were to pay off or assume. Plaintiffs’ proofs showed that they were ready to take title on the date of settlement, but that the defendant was unable to deliver a marketable title because of an open mortgage not yet due. The closing was postponed to enable defendant to clear up the title. In March, 1928, the plaintiffs became tired of waiting for the title defect to be cleared, notified defendant they would not take the property, and demanded the return of their deposit, which was refused.

It further appeared that the defendant did not tender a deed until after the suit was started April 26th, 1928; also that when the demand for the deposit was made the defective title had not been cleared up. It was in this state of the proofs that the motion for a nonsuit was made.

The defendant’s proofs did not materially modify this state of facts.

A date for settlement having been fixed in the agreement without making such date of the essence of the contract, and such date being permitted to pass 'by the agreement of the parties, neither could put the other in default without notice and the affording of a reasonable time to the owner within which to perfect the title. The eases to this effect are many and clear; a late ease on the subject is that of the *Orange*
      *597
      *Society*v. *Konski,*94 *N. J. Eq.*632; affirmed, 95 *Id.*254. Still a later authority to the same effect is *Nass*v. *Munzing,*100 *Id.*421. Time not having been made of the essence of the contract, either in the written agreement or by any specification of time by the plaintiffs giving reasonable opportunity to the defendant to clear up its title, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the deposit of $500.

The judgment is reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE SHEETS
AND  STATEMENTS OF  OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY'S  FORM 10-K FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                       
<MULTIPLIER>1,000                                   

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               3,091
<SECURITIES>                                         5,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                          693<F1> 
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                            637<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     9,894
<PP&E>                                               1,139<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      11,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                2,564
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            33,339
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        11,273
<SALES>                                              1,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     1,586
<CGS>                                                3,096
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        3,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3,369<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (12,135)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (12,135)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0  
<NET-INCOME>                                       (12,135)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (1.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.44)
<FN>
<F1>ITEM SHOWN NET OF ALLOWANCES, CONSISTENT WITH THE BALANCE
    SHEET PRESENTATION.
<F2>ITEM SHOWN NET OF DEPRECIATION, CONSISTENT WITH THE BALANCE
    SHEET PRESENTATION.
<F3>ITEM CONSISTS OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>