alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 12 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-210]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially 
Closed Meeting

    The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on February 1, 
2007, 10:30 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6059, 14th Street 
between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The 
Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export 
Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the 
level of export controls applicable to materials and related 
technology.

Agenda

Public Session

    1. China Rule.
    2. New Chemical Biological Regulations.
    3. Synthetic Genomics.
    4. Chemical Weapons Convention Regulation Updates.

Closed Session

    5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 
10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
    A limited number of seats will be available during the public 
session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent 
time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the 
Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or 
after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public 
presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be 
forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bd2f8fbf9e2e5eceef9cbe9e2f8a5efe4e8a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c250f0c0e15121b190e3c1e150f5218131f521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 5, 
2007, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the 
premature disclosure of which would likely frustrate the implementation 
of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) 
shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found 
in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the 
meeting will be open to the public.
    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: January 16, 2007.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-210 Filed 1-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 193.60-10 Location. ( a ) Fire axes shall be distributed throughout the spaces available to persons on board so as to be most readily available in the event of emergency.
( b ) If fire axes are not located in the open, or behind glass, so that they may be readily seen, they may be placed in enclosures together with the firehose, provided such enclosures are marked as required by § 196.37-15 of this subchapter.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 32 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 32

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
  Financial Protection relating to ``Small Business Lending Under the 
             Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 
to ``Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 
(Regulation B)'' (88 Fed. Reg. 35150 (May 31, 2023)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.

            Passed the Senate October 18, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 32

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
  Financial Protection relating to ``Small Business Lending Under the 
             Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)''.
```
EXHIBIT 32.2


                        ICY SPLASH FOOD & BEVERAGE, INC.
    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 amended Quarterly Report of Icy Splash Food & Beverage,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Charles Tokarz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Icy Splash Food & Beverage, Inc. and will be retained by Icy Splash
Food & Beverage, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

Date:  April 14, 2004


/s/ Charles Tokarz
----------------------------
    Charles Tokarz
    Chief Financial Officer
|EXHIBIT 32(b)


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly
report of Axonyx Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
I, S. Colin Neill, Chief Financial  Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant  to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 1. | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ S. Colin Neill

S. Colin Neill
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


May 14, 2004


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 the Company and
will be retained by the  Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2012025EN.01006401.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/64

---

Action brought on 24 November 2011 — Ecologistas en Acción-CODA v Commission

(Case T-603/11)

(2012/C 25/122)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ecologistas en Acción-CODA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Doreste Hernández, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the rejection decision of the Secretary General of the European Commission denying access to the documents requested by the applicant in proceedings GESTDEM 2011/6, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the rejection decision of the Secretary General of the European Commission denying access to the documents requested by the applicant in proceedings GESTDEM 2011/6, and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The documents to which the applicant has sought access and which are at issue in these proceedings are the same as those in Case T-341/11 Ecologistas en acción-CODA v Commission.

The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in that case, seeking the annulment of the implied rejection decision denying the applicant access to the requested documents.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 25, 2013

h0617

Order 

Clerk

June 25, 2013

146308

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146308

COA: 310515

Wayne CC: 08-009824-FC

LAMAR CLINTON CRAIG,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)

**Title:**  Teaching strategy: challenge andresponse

Formats: PDF,MOBI,EPUB

 
SuDoc: D 101.146:ST 8/4��������� 
Item Number: 0307-A-31(online)
CGP system Number: 000673582
# C_2012250EN.01002003.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/20

---

Order of the General Court of 28 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council

(Case T-656/11) (1)

1

2012/C 250/38

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.

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.

§ 153.953 Signals during cargo transfer. The master shall ensure that: ( a ) The tankship displays a red flag in the day and a red light at night when transferring cargo while fast to a dock;
( b ) The tankship displays a red flag when transferring cargo while at anchor; and
( c ) The red flag or the red light is visible from all sides of the tankship.
#### § 174.040 Stability requirements: general.

Each unit must be designed to have at least 2 inches (50mm) of positive metacentric height in the upright equilibrium position for the full range of drafts, whether at the operating draft for navigation, towing, or drilling afloat, or at a temporary draft when changing drafts.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6075** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. SIDNEY EDWARD HUDDLESTON, III, a/k/a Eddy, a/k/a Sidney E. Huddleston, III , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Huntington
. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00042

- 1; 3:11

- cv - 00403 )

Submitted : April 25 , 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Sidney Edward Huddleston, III, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Grimes Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sidney Edward Huddleston, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate jud ge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issu e absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hudd leston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
# C_2013108EN.01002301.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (MEDINET)

(Case T-378/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark MEDINET - Earlier national and international figurative marks MEDINET - Claim of seniority of the earlier national and international marks - Earlier marks in colour and Community trade mark applied for not designating any specific colour - Signs not identical - Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Expediency of oral proceedings - Article 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 108/60

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (Traben-Trarbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2011 (Case R 1598/2010-4) relating to a claim of seniority of earlier marks in an application for registration of the figurative sign MEDINET as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

1

---
# C_2012366EN.01003301.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 October 2012 — Bial-Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR)

(Case T-366/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR - Earlier Community word mark ZEBINIX - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 366/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bial-Portela & C
  a
  , SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J.M. Conceição Pimenta, lawyers)

Applicant:

a

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and H.L. Curtis-Oliver, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Bial-Portela & Ca, SA and Isdin, SA

a

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bial-Portela & Ca, SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bial-Portela & Ca, SA;

a

| 3. | Orders Isdin, SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Isdin, SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 15-cv-10640 

vs. 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

ALEXANDER C. SWEDA 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________________________________________/ 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff having filed the instant action against Defendant for federally 

guaranteed student loan obligations; the parties being desirous of amicably resolving 

this matter; and the Court being otherwise fully advised: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the 

amount of $131,595.56. 

2. The Judgment will accrue interest pursuant to statutory rates as set forth 

in 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 

3. Said Judgment in Paragraph 1 above is to be satisfied by payment of 

$105,000.00 in monthly installments of $200.00, beginning on the first day of the 

month immediately following the month in which this Order is dated and continuing 

monthly thereafter. 

2:15-cv-10640-MFL-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 09/25/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 183
 

2 

4. Defendant may make monthly payments larger than $200.00 per month 

without penalty, and the parties agree that after twelve (12) months of installment 

payments, the parties shall review Defendant’s financial status to determine whether 

an increase of the monthly payment amount is appropriate. Any increase in monthly 

payments must be made either by mutual agreement or by filing a motion for an 

installment payment order. 

5. Upon receipt of $105,000.00 in accordance with the above terms, 

Plaintiff shall file a satisfaction of judgment in this matter and shall discharge 

Defendant of any further obligations under the student loans referenced in Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

6. Plaintiff will stay any collection activity while payments are timely made 

in accordance with the above. 

7. Defendant shall have a five (5) day grace period after the first day of 

each month to make each monthly payment. Should Defendant fail to make any 

monthly payment by expiration of the grace period, Plaintiff has the right to 

commence collection proceedings without further notice or hearing. 

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that this resolves the last pending 

claim and closes the case. 

 /s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 25, 2015 

2:15-cv-10640-MFL-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 09/25/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 184
 

3 

Stipulated as to form and content: 

/s/ Craig S. Schoenherr, Sr. (signature page to follow) 

Craig S. Schoenherr, Sr. (P32245) Alexander C. Sweda 

Attorney for Plaintiff Pro Se Defendant 

2:15-cv-10640-MFL-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 09/25/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 185
2:15-cv-10640-MFL-DRG Doc # 13 Filed 09/25/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 186
# C_2012025EN.01003401.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 7 November 2011 — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Parma

(Case C-560/11)

(2012/C 25/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danilo Debiasi

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Parma

Question referred

Is there a conflict between national legislation and Community law, in particular between, on the one hand, Articles 19(5) and 19a of Presidential Decree No 633/72 and, on the other, Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC, (1) document COM (2001) 260 final of 23 May 2001 and document COM (2000) 348 final of 7 June 2000, and ‘unequal treatment’ as regards the VAT rules applied by the various Member States of the European Union, given that different rates of VAT are applied to the same healthcare services?

---

(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1

---