alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Open SystemC Initiative

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 19, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Open SystemC Initiative 
(``OSCI'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Industrial Technology Research Institute, Hsinchu, 
TAIWAN; Infineon Technologies Austria AG, Villach, AUSTRIA; and 
Semiconductor Technology Academic Research Center, Yokohama, JAPAN have 
been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and OSCI intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On October 9, 2001, OSCI filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
January 3, 2002 (67 FR 350).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 13, 
2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on December 12, 2006 (71 FR 74559).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-2232 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.005-6 Marking. Each life preserver must have the following clearly marked in waterproof lettering on a front section: ( a ) In letters three-fourths inch or more in height: ( 1 ) Adult (for persons weighing over 90 pounds); or
( 2 ) Child (for persons weighing less than 90 pounds).
( b ) In letters capable of being read at a distance of 2 feet:
Inspected and tested in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations. Fibrous glass buoyant material provides a minimum buoyant force of (25 lb. or 161 ⁄ 2 lb.). Approved for use on all vessels by persons weighing (90 lb. or more, or less than 90 lb). U.S. Coast Guard Approval No. 160.005/ (assigned manufacturer's No.)/(Revision No.). (Model No.); (Name and address of manufacturer or distributor.). (Lot No.).
[CGD 72-163R, 38 FR 8118, Mar. 28, 1973, as amended by CGD 75-008, 43 FR 9770, Mar. 9, 1978; USCG-2013-0263, 79 FR 56499, Sept. 22, 2014]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997             JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997             JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                      40,766,258              44,142,187
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,188,262               3,493,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                   554,000                 200,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            60,744,744              49,450,228
<PP&E>                                       3,524,776               1,711,105
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,127,176                 305,337
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              65,419,009              53,660,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,615,315               9,476,418
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       137,966                 137,929
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,509,061              43,968,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                65,419,009              53,660,575
<SALES>                                     22,273,042               5,257,227
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,273,042               5,257,227
<CGS>                                        4,731,599               3,224,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,022,704              11,059,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,619,190)             (5,087,838)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,619,190)             (5,087,838)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,619,190)             (5,087,838)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.48)                   (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.48)                   (.42)
        

</TABLE>
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 MyCom Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Earnest
Mathis, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Director 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:

     (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.

Date:    August 13, 2007
                                   /s/ Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                   -----------------------
                                   Earnest Mathis, Jr.,
                                   Chief Executive Officer, President
                                   Secretary and Treasurer and Sole Director
EXHIBIT 99.17
 CONSENT OF EXPERT
   (a)
    
    under the headings The Nuclear Business  Reserves and Resources, The Nuclear
Business  Development Projects  Cigar Lake and Interest of Experts in the
Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2009 dated March
31, 2010 for the Cigar Lake property; and(b)
    
    under the heading Reserves and Resources in Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31,
2009 dated February 23, 2010 for the Cigar Lake property,
    /s/ C. Scott BishopName:
    
    C. Scott Bishop, P. Eng.Title:
    
    Chief Mine Engineer, Cigar Lake project, Cameco CorporationDate:
    
    March 31, 2010
# C_2012065EN.01002701.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/27

---

Action brought on 29 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-144/11)

2012/C 65/53

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: I. Ruiz Garcia, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the selection tests following publication of a corrigendum to the notice of competition annulling the eliminatory mark for situational judgment test (d).

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul decision EPSO/R/17/11 and the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature in application of the corrigendum; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul decision EPSO/R/17/11 and the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature in application of the corrigendum;

| — | Invite the applicant to the second stage of the competition EPSO/AST/111/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

Invite the applicant to the second stage of the competition EPSO/AST/111/10;

| — | Award the applicant the sum of EUR 10 400 in damages with interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the sum of EUR 10 400 in damages with interest;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*— Smith *v.*Emil Schiellein and others.

Order granting writ of *mandamus*affirmed, upon opinion at Special Term.

Dykman, J., disjenting.
#### JOSEPH R. HOLZMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FRED W. YUENGLING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Decided December 14, 1928.

Before Justices Tkenci-iakd, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the appellant, *William TyacJce.*

For the respondent, *Meyers & Lesser.*

Pek Cukiam.

There was a directed verdict in the Essex County'Circuit Court in favor of the plaintiff below and against the defendant below. The action was brought on a bond in the penal sum of $5,000, and which bond was given in connection with a mortgage of $2,500, to recover a deficiency remaining due on the bond after the sale of the premises upon which the said mortgage rested.

The facts of the case are briefly these: A prior mortgage was foreclosed and the plaintiff was made a party defendant. A final decree was entered, followed by execution and sale of the premises thereunder, by the sheriff of Essex county, on January 11th, 1927, to the Myles Realty Company. The *21property was bid ill at a price sufficient to cover the first mortgage, and this left a deficiency of the entire amount due plaintiff on his junior bond and mortgage. On March 30th, 1927, the plaintiff brought his action in the Essex County Circuit Court upon his bond, but did not, prior to commencing said action, file any notice in the office of the register of Essex county of the proposed action or of an action pending. The case came on for trial, and it appearing that no such notice of the commencement of plaintiff’s action was filed by him, either prior to or afterwards, counsel of defendant, after plaintiff had rested his case, moved for a nonsuit on the ground that there was no evidence that the plaintiff had filed the required notice in the register’s office of the county of Essex, prior to the commencement of his action. The motion was also denied.

At the conclusion of the entire case, attorney for defendant moved for a direction of a verdict on the same ground upon which his motion for nonsuit was based, and this motion was denied.

It is the overruling of these motions which constitutes the two grounds of appeal. They may be considered together. The question, growing out of the facts as detailed, is whether a statutory notice, such as is required by the act of 1907, page 563 (3 *Comp.*Siai., *p.*3423), applies to a bond secured by a junior mortgage, where the mortgaged premises have been sold under foreclosure of a prior mortgage.

We do not think that this can be any longer an open question, since the decision of *Schmidt*v. *Frey (Court of Errors and Appeals),*86 *N. J. L.*215, where, under circumstances analogous to those present in the case *sub*judice, it was held that the provision of the statute relating to notice before commencing an action was not applicable. The cited ease is controlling here.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
# C_2013063EN.01001504.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/15

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hongrie) — Franklin Templeton Investment Funds Société d’Investissement à Capital Variable v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-112/12) (1)

1

2013/C 63/28

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

1

---
#### § 32.40-65 Crew accommodations on tankships constructed before June 15, 1987—T/ALL.

All tankships of 100 gross tons and over constructed before June 15, 1987, may retain previously accepted or approved installations and arrangements so long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
#### William D. Mott, *Respondent, v.*Charles C. Abeel, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
#### ALBINO SCILIMBRACCA, RESPONDENT, v. THE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT.

Submitted January term, 1929

Decided July 3, 1929.

Before Justices Teenciiaed, Kaltscii and Lloyd.

*636Eor the appellant, *William A. Barhalow.*

Eor the respondent, *Arthur DeVinseniU.*

Pee Cuetam.

This action was brought by a passenger against the Central Railroad Company to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s eyes, caused by the breaking of the glass window near which he was seated in defendant’s train. The plaintiff’s case disclosed these facts, and a motion for nonsuit was made and denied. Later, a motion for direction of a verdict in favor of defendant was made, and this also was denied.

On judgment being rendered for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals alleging error in these rulings.

We think the rulings were right. The nonsuit was properly denied, because from the breaking of the glass the judge, sitting as a jury, might infer negligence, precisely as was held in the case of *Hughes*v. *Atlantic City Railroad,*85 *N. J. L.*212, where a broken electric light bulb caused like injury:

As to the denial of the direction of a verdict for defendant, this was based on proof of an alleged admission of the plaintiff that a stone had been thrown through the window, and also the testimony of a boy that he had thrown stones at trains on that night. If this proof had clearly established that the accident happened because of a stone thrown by someone for whom the railroad company was not responsible, we might be called upon to say whether such proof would remove the question as one of fact from the trial judge, sitting as a jury, and convert it into a question of law, but .the evidence was not of a character to invoke a ruling on this point. There was no proof that at the time the car was passing at seven-thirty in the evening any stones were thrown at it, and the plaintiff denied having made the admission attributed to him.

The judgment is affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 199
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 199 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59789, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 199.290 Stowage of survival craft. ( a ) To meet the requirements of § 199.130(b)(1), each lifeboat— ( 1 ) On a cargo vessel 80 meters (262 feet) or more in length but less than 120 meters (393 feet) in length, must be stowed with the after-end of the lifeboat at a distance not less than one length of the lifeboat forward of the vessel's propeller; and
( 2 ) On a cargo vessel 120 meters (393 feet) or more in length, must be stowed with the after end of the lifeboat not less than 1.5 times the length of the lifeboat forward of the vessel's propeller.
( b ) On a tank vessel certificated to carry cargos that have a flashpoint less the 60 °C as determined under ASTM D 93 (incorporated by reference, see § 199.05), each lifeboat or launching appliance of aluminum construction must be protected by a water spray system meeting the requirements of part 34, subpart 34.25 of this chapter.
( c ) Other than the stowage position for the liferaft required under § 199.261(e), no stowage position or muster and embarkation station for a survival craft on a tank vessel may be located on or above a cargo tank, slop tank, or other tank containing explosives or hazardous liquids.
( d ) Each lifeboat and davit-launched liferaft must be arranged to be boarded by its full complement of persons within 3 minutes from the time the instruction to board is given.
[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25313, May 20, 1996, as amended by USCG-1999-5151, 64 FR 67187, Dec. 1, 1999]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00159-CR

NO. 03-07-00160-CR

Alexander Johnson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 3020464 & D-1-DC-02-300616, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Alexander Johnson seeks to appeal from an adjudication of guilt (number 3020464)

and an order revoking regular community supervision (number D-1-DC-02-300616). In both causes,

sentence was imposed on December 19, 2006. In the absence of a timely motion for new trial, the

deadline for perfecting appeal was January 18, 2007. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Johnson’s pro se

notices of appeal were filed on February 20, 2007. Under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction

to dispose of the purported appeals in any manner other than by dismissing them for want of

jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d

519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
2

The appeals are dismissed.

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 5, 2007

Do Not Publish
Date: 20150811 Revision: 1.0 Revision:1.0

Page 1 of 1

PRIVACY INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Appendix G

Public Interest

The UAS operations involving the DJI Phantom 2, Phantom 2+ , DJI Phantom 3, Inspire, 

and Matrice will be in the public interest for many reasons. UAS operations in aerial surveying, 

aerial photography, agriculture operations, aerial inspection and mapping operations with little to 

no negative impact on our fragile environment. UAS’s will reduce noise, fuel vapor, fuel burn, 

fuel spills and many of the other dangerous side effects of the larger manned aircraft. 

Any operations which involve manned aircraft, other than cargo or passenger transport, 

can be conduct with less impact on the environment by a UAS. A UAS can conduct; aerial 

surveying, aerial photography, and mapping operations with little to no effect on the 

environment from noise, fuel vapor, fuel burn, fuel spills, damage from rotor wash, or many of 

the other dangerous side effects of the larger manned aircraft.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 10879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1152]



[[Page 10877]]

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

Part IV





The President





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



Executive Order 13427--Extending Privileges and Immunities to the 
Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations



Presidential Determination No. 2007-14 of February 28, 2007--
Presidential Determination Under Section 490(b)(1)(A) of the Foreign 
Assistance Act Relating to the Largest Exporting and Importing 
Countries of Certain Precursor Chemicals


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 10879]]

                Executive Order 13427 of March 7, 2007

                
Extending Privileges and Immunities to the 
                Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the 
                United Nations

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, including section 7(b) of the Department of 
                State Authorities Act of 2006 (22 U.S.C. 288l), I 
                hereby extend to the Permanent Observer Mission of the 
                Holy See to the United Nations in New York, and to its 
                members, the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the 
                diplomatic missions of member states to the United 
                Nations, and members of such missions, subject to 
                corresponding conditions and obligations.

                This extension of privileges and immunities is not 
                intended to abridge in any respect privileges or 
                immunities that the Permanent Observer Mission of the 
                Holy See to the United Nations in New York and its 
                members otherwise may have acquired or may acquire by 
                law.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    March 7, 2007.

[FR Doc. 07-1152
Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 12
Federal Reserve Bank of: San Francisco

## Filings received during the week ending December 2, 2006

|Filer                | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                  | End of Comment Period                              
|-------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------
|UNITED SECURITY BANK | * 18C          | United Security Bank, Fresno, California, to merge with Legacy Bank, N.A., Campbell, California. | Newspaper:12/17/2006Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:           | 12/17/2006    
|Federal Register:    | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us