alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013108EN.01001001.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/10

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) — Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

(Case C-154/12) (1)

1

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Sugar - Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 - Article 16 - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Article 51 - Imposition of a charge on production - Validity - Lack of legal basis - Failure to state clear and unequivocal reasons - Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination - Infringement of the principle of proportionality)

2013/C 108/19

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken

Applicants:

Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

Defendant:

Other parties to proceedings: Joseph Cockx and Others.

Other parties to proceedings

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Validity of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 37(2) EC and 253 EC — Imposition of a charge on production in the ‘beet sugar’ sector — Lack of legal basis — Failure to state clear and unequivocal reasons — Discrimination as compared with other industries and as compared with other agricultural and non-agricultural sectors — Infringement of the principle of proportionality

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and Article 51 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation).

---

(1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.

1

---
Adams, Kevin (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject: December 16, 2013 Dear Kevin: Gail Ochs <gail@Aberdeen-chamber.com> Monday, December 16, 2013 10:24 AM Adams, Kevin (OSn Support for EASProposal 

### .'13 "-C L, "e 1b A /I: 0i.I

TheAberdeen Chamber of Commerce's Transportation Committee held a meeting on 11/26/2013 and after discussion about the proposal for EssentialAir Service in Aberdeen, it was decided to submit acomment supporting SkyWest's bid for service inAberdeen. SkyWest hasserved the needs of our community well over the pasttwo years and we would like to seethem continue to provide our community with air service. The proposal that they submitted meets the service level required under the EssentialAir Service program and they are requesting a lower subsidy amount than they are currently receiving. On behalf ofthe Transportation Committee, please select SkyWest asthe carrier to serve Aberdeen for the next two years. Sincerely, GailOchs President Aberdeen Area Chamber of Commerce

1



### ,,
#### § 30.10-19a Control space—TB/ALL.

The term *control space* means an enclosed space in which is located a ship's radio, main navigating equipment, or emergency source of power or in which is located centralized fire recording or fire control equipment, but not including firefighting apparatus that must be located in the cargo area or individual pieces of firefighting equipment.

[CGD 74-127, 41 FR 3843, Jan. 26, 1976]
-  Home 
-  Aircraft 
-  Aircraft Safety 
-  Alerts 

# In This Section

                      -  Overview 
                      -  Aircraft Certification                          -  Overview 
                        -  Aircraft Registration 
                        -  Airworthiness Certification 
                        -  Continued Operational Safety 
                        -  Design Approvals 
                        -  International 
                        -  Locate an Office 
                        -  Production Approvals 
                        -  Senior Technical Experts Program (STEP) 
                      -  Aircraft Safety                          -  Overview 
                        -  Alerts 
                        -  Cargo Safety 
                        -  Programs 
                        -  Report Safety Issues 
                      -  General Aviation & Recreational Aircraft                          -  Overview 
                        -  Shoulder Harness Kits 
                      -  Repair Stations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Air Agency Certification 

# Aircraft Safety Alerts

                  - Airworthiness Directives (AD)
                  - Maintenance Alerts
                  - Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIB)
                  - Service Difficulty Reports (SDR), Submit, Search, or Upload
                  - Service Difficulty Reports History
                  - Unapproved Parts Notifications (UPN)
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 on Form 10-Q of Victory Energy Corporation (the “Company”) for the three month period ended March 31, 2010, (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, 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, as amended; and




2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Dated: May 16, 2011
By:
/s/ ROBERT J. MIRANDARobert J. MirandaChief Executive Officer 
(principal executive officer)Dated: May 16, 2011
By:
/s/  ROBERT J. MIRANDARobert J. MirandaChief Financial Officer 
(principal financial officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear 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.
§ 35.07-10 Actions required to be logged—TB/ALL. ( a ) *General—TB/ALL.* The actions and observations noted in this section shall be entered in the Official Logbook or in logs or records considered to take place of the Official Logbooks. This section contains no requirements which are not made in specific laws or in other regulations in this subchapter, the items being merely grouped together for convenience.
( b ) *Entries—T/ALL.* Entries shall be made in the logs of tankships with respect to the following: ( 1 ) Onboard training, musters, and drills: held in accordance with subchapter W (Lifesaving Appliances or Arrangements) of this chapter.
( 2 ) Draft and load line marks. For tankships of 150 gross tons and over, prior to leaving port for ocean, coastwise, and Great Lakes voyages only. See § 35.20-5.
( 3 ) Verification of vessel compliance with applicable stability requirements. After loading and prior to departure and at all other times necessary to assure the safety of the vessel. See § 35.20-7.
( 4 ) Steering gear tests. Prior to departure, or for tank ships on voyages of less than 48 hours duration or tankships operating on lakes, bays, sounds and rivers, once every week. See § 35.20-10.
( 5 ) Fuel oil data. Upon receipt of fuel oil on board to be used as fuel. See § 35.25-10.
( 6 ) Inspections and tests of firefighting equipment. Once every year. See § 31.10-18 of this subchapter.
( 7 ) Operation and inspection of the emergency lighting and power systems. Once in each week that the vessel is navigated. See § 35.10-15.
( 8 ) Cargo gear inspections: At least once a month. See § 31.37-70 of this subchapter.
( c ) *Entries—B/ALL.* Entries shall be made in the records for tank barges with respect to the following: ( 1 ) Inspections and tests of firefighting equipment. Once every year. See § 31.10-18 of this subchapter.
( 2 ) Draft and load line marks. For tank barges of 150 gross tons and over, prior to leaving port for ocean, coastwise, and Great Lakes voyages only.
( 3 ) Cargo gear inspections: At least once a month. See § 31.37-70 of this subchapter.
( 4 ) Verification of vessel compliance with applicable stability requirements. After loading and prior to departure and at all other times necessary to assure the safety of the vessel. See § 35.20-7.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16704, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 89-037, 57 FR 41821, Sept. 11, 1992; CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25286, May 20, 1996, CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51199, Sept. 30, 1997]
# C_2014045EN.01004401.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/44

---

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — Unipol Banca v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (unicard)

(Case T-574/11) (1)

1

2014/C 45/75

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.

1

---
**Exhibit99.1**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CompuMed,Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,John G. McLaughlin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)        Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to CompuMed, Inc. and will be retained by CompuMed, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| /s/  John G. McLaughlin          |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |
| John  G. McLaughlin              |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| May 12, 2003                          |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 21

                     MATRIA HEALTHCARE, INC. SUBSIDIARIES
                                March 24, 1997


                                                        Jurisdiction of
                Name                                    Incorporation

*Carelink Corporation                                   Delaware
Clinical-Management Systems, Inc.                       Georgia
*Creative Medical Concepts, Inc.                        Georgia
*East Med Services, Inc.                                Georgia
*EMS Supplies Incorporated                              Georgia
*Healthdyne Financial Services, Inc.                    Georgia
*Healthdyne Home Care Services, Inc.                    Georgia
*Healthdyne Home Care Services, Inc.                    Georgia
*Healthdyne Integrated Alternatives, Inc.               Georgia
*Healthdyne Nursery Products, Inc.                      Delaware
*Healthdyne Maternity Management of Texas, Inc.         Texas
High-Tech Nursing, Inc.                                 Georgia
Maternal Fetal Diagnostic Services, Inc.                Georgia
Matria Healthcare of Illinois, Inc.                     Georgia
Matria of New York, Inc.                                New York
*Monitored Care, Inc.                                   Delaware
National Medical Reproductive Centers, Inc.             California
       Pacific Fertility Centers of California, Inc.    California
       Pacific Fertility Parenting Centers, Inc.        California
*Perinatal Care Alternatives, Inc.                      Georgia
*Perinatal Services Nederland B.V.                      Nederlands
*Shared Care, Inc.                                      Georgia
Specialized Clinical Services, Inc.                     California
Specialized Clinical Services, Inc.                     Delaware
*Tokos Acquisition Corporation                          Delaware
*Tokos Clinical Services Corporation (Portland)         Delaware
*Tokos Clinical Services Corporation (New York)         New York
*Tokos Clinical Services Corporation                    Delaware
*Tokos Medical Management Corporation                   Delaware
*Women's Homecare, Inc.                                 Delaware

*Inactive

Note: The above subsidiaries (except for Perinatal Services Nederland B.V. in
which Matria owns a 51% interest and Omni Medical in which Matria owns an 80%
interest) are directly 100% owned by Matria Healthcare, Inc.
# C_2012065EN.01001501.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/15

---

Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)

(Case T-660/11)

2012/C 65/29

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Polytetra GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, 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: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2011 in case R 2005/2010-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2011 in case R 2005/2010-1; and

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘POLYTETRAFLON’, for goods and services in classes 1, 11, 17 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 6131015

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 432120 of the word mark ‘TEFLON’, for amongst others, goods and services in classes 1, 11, 17 and 40

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: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 15(1), 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, insofar as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier mark and that genuine use for the earlier mark was proven.

Pleas in law:

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

§ 199.90 Operating instructions. Each vessel must have posters or signs displayed in the vicinity of each survival craft and the survival craft's launching controls that— ( a ) Illustrate the purpose of controls;
( b ) Illustrate the procedures for operating the launching device;
( c ) Give relevant instructions or warnings;
( d ) Can be easily seen under emergency lighting conditions; and
( e ) Display symbols in accordance with IMO Resolution A.760(18).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS

MUTUAL RISK MANAGEMENT LTD.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 33-44124, 33-55282, 333-05008, 333-77359 and 333-80741) and Form
S-3 (Nos. 333-64419, 333-11053, 333-75505 and 333-96425) of Mutual Risk
Management Ltd. of our report dated February 15, 2000 (except for note 21, as to
which the date is February 29, 2000), with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedules of Mutual Risk Management Ltd. included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.



                                                               /s/ Ernst & Young

Hamilton, Bermuda
March 30, 2000

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

To The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Mutual Risk Management Ltd.



We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Mutual Risk
Management Ltd. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the
related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, changes in
shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 1999.  Our audits also included the financial statement
schedules listed in the Index at Item 14(B).  These financial statements and
schedules are the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and
schedules based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.


In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Mutual Risk
Management Ltd. and subsidiaries at December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the
consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 1999, in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States.  Also, in our opinion, the
related financial statement schedules, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all material respects
the information set forth therein.



Hamilton, Bermuda
February 15, 2000
except for note 21, as to which the date is
February 29, 2000

                                                               /s/ Ernst & Young
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

September 6, 2011

Mr. Marvin Earl Arnold

P.O. Box 50715 Amarillo, TX 79159

Dear Mr. Arnold:

This letter is in re sponse to your December 15, 2008, peti tion for rulemaking to establish a new category of sport pilot certificate entitled “Special Sport Pilot Rating or Category ‘A’ Sport Pilot” in part 61 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

In 2004, the Federal Aviation Administration issu ed the final rule en titled “Certification

of Aircraft and Airmen for th e Operation of Light Sport Airc raft” (the “Sport Pilot Rule” [69 FR 44792]). Since then, we have responde d to several requests to revisit the lightsport aircraft standards. For example, th e Cessna 120/140 Association petitioned to allow aircraft weighing more than the maximum ta keoff weight (1,320 lbs.) to be operated by individuals with sport pilot airman certificate privileges. In our denial of that petition (Exemption No. 8749), we cited the pream ble of the Sport Pilot final rule.

“In prohibiting modifications to aircraft to meet the light -sport aircraft definition, the FAA seeks to ensure that the light-s port aircraft operating characteristics are

consistent with the skills and traini ng for the sport pilot.” (69 FR 44792)

We had extensive debate with general avia tion industry groups and other organizations before arriving at the 1,320-lb. limit. We rea lized that some aircraft would necessarily be excluded because they weigh more than 1,320 lbs., even though they were similar to aircraft meeting the criteria for light-sport. We consider the weight determination of the light-sport rulemaking committee to be a highly refined product, and we planned to apply future rulemaking around that determination.

In order to maintain the integrity of that rule making, we conclude that aircraft certificated before the light-sport rule weighing more than 1,320 lbs. shall main tain their original

airworthiness certification and may only be operated by pilots holding a pilot certificate with ratings appropriate to that aircraft.2 In consideration of the foregoing and pursuan t to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, your petition for rulemaking is hereby denied.

Accordingly, we will close Docket No. FAA-2008-1332.

Sincerely,

/s/

David Gilliom Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
#### § 32.02-5 Communication between deckhouses—TB/OCLB.

On all tank vessels where the distance between deckhouses is more than 46 meters (150 feet), a fixed means of facilitating communication between both ends of the vessel, such as a raised fore and aft bridge or side tunnels, must be provided. Previously approved arrangements may be retained so long as they are maintained in satisfactory condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.

[CGD 95-027, 61 FR 25997, May 23, 1996]
**Exhibit
      32**








**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 Victory Energy Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the
      period ending September 30, 2007 (the “Report”), Jon Fullenkamp, Principal
      Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, 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 requirement 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 Company’s financial position and results of
                operations.











Date:  November
      _, 2007


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


Jon
      Fullenkamp


Principal
      Executive
      Officer


Principal
      Financial and


Accounting
      Officer