alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[4910-13-P[

Air.wortbiDcSs Din~ctive5; Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 and A340-200 and -300

IDocket No. FAA_2010_"'u**; Directorate Identifier 2010~NM~005-AOI -//6/6C

Serics Airplanes

RIN 212o-AA64

Federal A\'iatioD Administration

14 CFR Part 39

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA nON

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

o

ACfION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new ainvonhiness directive (AD) for the prOOuc

""""-~""'""'-

A·NJ'1-

n.z:..-

••

15 1

-'QI1- ~''''''''.

~ .\J.M - 1"1

• • • • • • •

listed above thai would supersede an existing l\D. This proposed AD results from

A debonding area was detected on the RH [right-hand] elevator of an

A340 in-service

aeroplane during a scheduled maintenance task inspection.

product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation

Investigation has revealed thai rhis dcbonding may have becn caused by

water ingress and, irno! detected and corrected, might compromise the

structural integrity of the elevators (and could resull in reduced

controllability of the airplane].

mandatory continuing airvvorthiness infomlati901(MCAI) originated by an aviation

The proposed AD would require actions that ar,e intended lo address the unsafe condit" "ti"

descnbed in the MeAl.

FAA Form 1360·14.1 (&-89) oFFIClAL FILE COPY
14910-13-P)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AnON

Federal Aviation Administration

14eFR Part 39

IDocket No. FAA-2010-*****j Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-OOS-AD)

R1N 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 and A340-200 and -300

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (fAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the produc

listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from

mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) originated by an aviation

authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation

product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

A debonding area was detected on the RH [right-hand] elevator of an

A340 in-service

aeroplane during a scheduled maintenance task inspection.

Investigation has revealed that this debonding may have been caused by

water ingress and, if not detected and corrected, might compromise the

structural integrity of the elevators [and could result in reduced

controllability of the airplane]'

1

7717/ 10

"Odnl«> S"'5<X

~E'¢/fEC

OAT~

* • • • • • •

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe conditi ~1H

described in the MeAl. I

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE COPY

* u.s. GOVERNMENT ?RIIffiNG OFFice 1995·769-211
EXHIBIT 4.15.1

                                                               February 17, 1999

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company
John Hancock Variable Life Insurance Company
Signature lA (Cayman), Ltd.
200 Clarendon Street
Boston, MA 02117

                  Re: Able Telcom Holding Corp.
                  $10,000,000 12% Senior Subordinated Notes due January 6, 2005.

Gentlemen:

         In connection with our purchase of the above-captioned notes for
consideration of $11,633,333.33 (the "Notes"), we hereby represent and warrant
as follows:

1.       The undersigned understands that the Notes have not been registered
         under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act"), and may not
         be sold except pursuant to a duly available exemption from such
         registration requirements.

2.       The undersigned is purchasing the Notes for its own account and not
         with a view to or for sale which would be a violation of the Act. Any
         private resale of the Notes by the undersigned shall only be made to
         purchasers who would have been qualified to purchase the Notes at the
         time of the original private placement.

3.       The undersigned is an "accredited investor," as such term is defined in
         Rule 501(a) of Regulation D under the Act, and has such knowledge and
         experience in financial and business matters that it is capable of
         evaluating the merits and risks of the purchase of the Notes, and has
         concluded that it is able to bear those risks.

4.       The Notes were not offered or sold to the undersigned by any form of
         general solicitation or general advertising.

<PAGE>

5.       The undersigned acknowledges that if any transfer of the Notes is to be
         made in reliance on an exemption under the Act, the issuer of the Notes
         may require an opinion of counsel satisfactory to it that such transfer
         may be made pursuant to an exemption under the act.

6.       In making any subsequent offering or sale of the Notes, the undersigned
         will be acting only for itself and not as part of a sale or planned
         distribution which would be violation of the Act.

7.       The undersigned acknowledges that, so long as appropriate, a legend
         similar to the following may appear on the certificates representing
         the Notes: "These securities have not been registered under the
         Securities Act of 1933 and may be reoffered and sold only if so
         registered or if an exemption for registration is available."

                                                     COTTON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

                                                     By: /s/TYLER DIXON
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Title: President
# C_2013129EN.01001302.xml

| 4.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle, Wien (Austria)) — Michaela Hopfgartner

(Case C-577/12) (1)

1

2013/C 129/25

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1999
<CASH>                                           2,708
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,289
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,456
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,780
<PP&E>                                         123,736
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 361,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          197,643
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           341
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   361,260
<SALES>                                        375,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               375,549
<CGS>                                          124,071
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  329,233
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (11,877)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,364)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       106
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,383)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)


</TABLE>
IB 

House Calendar No. 92 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2498 

[Report No. 111–213] 

To designate the Federal building located at 844 North Rush Street in 

Chicago, Illinois, as the ‘‘William O. Lipinski Federal Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2009 

Mr. OBERSTAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

JULY 20, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 844 North 

Rush Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ‘‘William O. 

Lipinski Federal Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 844 North Rush 

5 Street in Chicago, Illinois, shall be known and designated 

6 as the ‘‘William O. Lipinski Federal Building’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2498 RH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

5 a reference to the ‘‘William O. Lipinski Federal Building’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 92 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2498 

[Report No. 111–213] 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 844 

‘‘William O. Lipinski Federal Building’’. North Rush Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the 

JULY 20, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
# C_2012013EN.01001801.xml

| 14.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/18

---

Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Symbio Gruppe v OHIM — ADA Cosmetic (SYMBIOTIC CARE)

(Case T-562/11)

2012/C 13/38

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Symbio Gruppe GmbH & Co. KG (Herborn, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ADA Cosmetic GmbH (Kehl, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 August 2011 in Case R 2121/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 August 2011 in Case R 2121/2010-4;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: ADA Cosmetic GmbH.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: International Registration of a figurative mark containing the word element ‘SYMBIOTIC CARE’ for goods in Classes 3, 5, 29 and 30.

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word and figurative marks ‘SYMBIOFLOR’ and ‘SYMBIOLACT’, international registration of the word mark ‘SYMBIOFEM’ and figurative mark ‘SYMBIOVITAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 5, 29 and 32.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, and infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Board of Appeal disregarded the fact that the trade marks on which the opposition was based form a family of marks.

Pleas in law:

---
EXHIBIT 99.4
  % of
    
    
    
    
    
    
    % ofTotal
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total(Cdn$)
    
    2010
    
    
    Fees
    
    
    2009
    
    
    FeesAudit Fees:Cameco
    
    $
    1,697,700
    
    
    
    62.6
    %
    
    $
    1,739,900
    
    
    
    48.7
    %Centerra and other subsidiaries
    
    
    256,200
    
    
    
    9.5
    %
    
    
    978,600
    1
    
    
    27.4
    %Total Audit Fees
    
    $
    1,953,900
    
    
    
    72.1
    %
    
    $
    2,718,500
    
    
    
    76.1
    %Audit-Related Fees:Cameco
    
    $
    273,400
    
    
    
    10.1
    %
    
    $
    219,800
    
    
    
    6.1
    %Centerra and other subsidiaries
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    32,300
    1
    
    
    0.9
    %Translation services
    
    
    44,500
    
    
    
    1.6
    %
    
    
    424,000
    
    
    
    11.9
    %Pensions
    
    
    20,000
    
    
    
    0.7
    %
    
    
    17,000
    
    
    
    0.5
    %Total Audit-Related Fees
    
    $
    337,900
    
    
    
    12.5
    %
    
    $
    693,100
    
    
    
    19.4
    %Tax Fees:Compliance
    
    $
    199,200
    
    
    
    7.3
    %
    
    $
    40,000
    
    
    
    1.1
    %Planning and advice
    
    
    219,500
    
    
    
    8.1
    %
    
    
    122,400
    
    
    
    3.4
    %Total Tax Fees
    
    $
    418,700
    
    
    
    15.4
    %
    
    $
    162,400
    
    
    
    4.5
    %All Other Fees:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total Fees:
    
    $
    2,710,500
    
    
    
    100.0
    %
    
    $
    3,574,000
    
    
    
    100.0
    %
 
 1
    
    The 2009 fees include amounts related to Centerra Gold Inc. (Centerra). We disposed of
our entire interest in Centerra in December 2009. Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures
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: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending March 3, 2007

|Filer                                   | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | End of Comment Period                                  
|--------------------------------------- | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., THE | Investment     | PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, through its wholly-owned subsidiary PFPC Worldwide, Inc., is seeking a banking license for its existing Dublin, Ireland subsidiary PFPC Trustee & Custodial Services Limited pursuant to sections 211.9(e) and (f) of Regulation K | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                              | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                       | Not applicable
|STATE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, THE       | * 18C* Branch  | Application by The State Bank and Trust Company, Defiance, OH to merge with The Exchange Bank, Luckey, OH pursuant to Section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.                                                                                                                       | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable 
|Newspaper:                              | Not available 
|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
#### § 169.251 Steering apparatus.

At each inspection for certification and periodic inspection the steering apparatus is inspected and operationally tested to determine that its condition is satisfactory and that it is fit for the service intended.

[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6508, Feb. 9, 2000]
No. 2650.

#### James Alexander *v.*The State.

Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property—Indictment to charge the fraudulent sale or disposition of mortgaged property must allege the name of the person to whom the same was sold or disposed, of, or, if such be the fact, that the name of such person was to the grand jurors unknown.

Appeal from the District Court of Travis. Tried below before the Hon. W. M. Key,

This conviction was for the fraudulent disposition of mortgaged property, and the penalty assessed against the appellant was a term of two years in the penitentiary.

No brief on file for appellant.

*W. L. Da/vidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

This conviction is for the fraudulent sale and disposition of mortgaged property. It is not alleged in the indictment to whom the defendant sold or disposed of the property, or that such person was unknown to the grand jury.

It is essential that the name of the person to whom the property was sold or disposed of should be alleged, or that it be *95alleged that the name 'of such person was unknown to the grand jury, and the omission of such an allegation is a substantial and fatal defect in the indictment. (Presley v. The State, 24 Texas Ct. App., 494; — v. State, 26 Texas Ct. App., .)

Opinion delivered January 23, 1889.

Because the indictment is insufficient the judgment is reversed and the prosecution is dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

52) ll-E-12 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:04 AM Sheet 52 of 264 
P.2 

CONTACT REPORT FORM 

PES PROJECT NO. N204 

'&Z* & 

Date 

9-22-93 

Company 

Battenfeld 

Contact 

Jim Fowler 

Phone 

(401) 823-0700 

Description: 

Mr. Fowler said that Battenfeld does make resin transfer molding (RTM) 

equipment for polyester resin operations. He agreed to send information to PES. 

He also stated rough numbers for prices of presses: 

100 ton press for $80,000. 

200 ton press for $100,000. 

500 ton press for $250,000. dc 

loUOJLLIl^ 

m 0CT19BS5 :''' 

t-— _ ... j
# C_2011186EN.01002602.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/26

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 May 2011 — Cahier and Others v Council of the European Union and European Commission

(Case T-195/11 R)

(Interim proceedings - Non-contractual liability - Application for interim measures - Inadmissible in part - Want of urgency)

2011/C 186/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant(s): Cahier and Others (Montchaude, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by E. Sitbon Bercain and P. Mahnič Bruni, Agents) and European Commission (represented by D. Bianchi, B. Schima and M. Vollkommer, Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application for interim measures and suspension of operation of Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1), as maintained in force by Article 128(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP LLC, 

Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant

v.

OVERHEAD DOOR CORPORATION, GMI 

HOLDINGS, INC., 

Defendants-Appellants

______________________

2023-1794, 23-1964

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:21-cv-00084-JRG, Chief 

Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 23-1794 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 06/16/2023
2 CHAMBERLAIN GROUP LLC V. OVERHEAD DOOR CORPORATION 

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

June 16, 2023

Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow 

Acting Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 16, 2023

Case: 23-1794 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 06/16/2023
AMERICAN AIRLINES 


April 7, 2010 

Linda L. Lundell 

U. S. r Licensing 

Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: American Airl , Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta 

ion Renewal DOT-OST-2004-16945 

Dear 	Ms. Lundell: 

American Airlines, Inc. has completed its poll of the 

part s served with our application of April 6, 2010. We are 

seeking renewal of exemption authority for the Los AngelesPuerto Vallarta route (AA* on flights operated by Mexicana) . 

We have received non-objections from of the parties 

we served. We request approval on or before April 16, 2010. 

Respectfully submitted, 

B. Nelson, Jr. 

Associate General Counsel 

American Airlines, Inc. 

1101 17th Street, N.W., Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

(202) 496-5647 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

cc: 	 Docket Branch 

Esta Rosenberg 

Service list 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing 

document by email on the following persons: 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

hkamen@coair.com 

jeffrey.manley@united.com 

jyoung@yklaw.com 

msinick@ssd.com 

dvaughan@kel .com 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com 

john.fredericksen@suncountry.com 

CARL B. NELSON, 

April 7, 2010 

jhill@dlalaw.com 

gbleopard@fedex.com 

efaberman@wileyrein.com 

ggarofalo@ggh-airlaw.com 

pmurphy@lopmurphy.com 

howard.kass@usairways.com 

recohn@hhlaw.com