alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2022141EN.01000601.xml

| 20.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 141/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 141/6

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/787

of 13 May 2022

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Cancoillotte’ (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Cancoillotte’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Cancoillotte’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Cancoillotte’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Cancoillotte’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Cancoillotte’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.4. Other products of animal origin (eggs, honey, various dairy products except butter, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 May 2022.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 49, 31.1.2022, p. 7.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6316
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MALEAKE THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-36-H, CA-95-131-H) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Maleake Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Thomas , Nos. CR-93-36-H; CA-95-131-H (E.D.N.C., Feb. 1, 1996). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ACCEPTED

06-15-00086-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

10/15/2015 10:46:35 AM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 10/15/2015 10:46:35 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1052

To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to civil penalties for unruly

passengers of air carriers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1999

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to civil

penalties for unruly passengers of air carriers.

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

3 SECTION 1. PENALTIES FOR UNRULY PASSENGERS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 463 of title 49, United

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow6 ing:

7 ‘‘§ 46317. Interference with cabin or flight crew

8 ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—An individual who interferes

9 with the duties or responsibilities of the flight crew or

10 cabin crew of a civil aircraft or takes any action that poses
2

•HR 1052 IH

1 an imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft or other

2 individuals on the aircraft is liable to the United States

3 Government for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000.

4 In addition or as an alternative, the Secretary of Trans5 portation may prohibit for not more than 1 year the indi6 vidual from flying as a passenger on an aircraft used to

7 provide air transportation.

8 ‘‘(b) NOTIFICATION OF AIR CARRIERS.—Not later

9 than 10 days after issuing an order prohibiting an individ10 ual from flying under subsection (a), the Secretary shall

11 notify all air carriers of the prohibition and the term of

12 such prohibition.

13 ‘‘(c) RESPONSIBILITY OF AIR CARRIERS.—After a

14 notification of an order issued under subsection (a), an

15 air carrier who provides air transportation for the individ16 ual prohibited from flying during the term of such prohibi17 tion is liable to the United States Government for a civil

18 penalty of not more than $25,000.

19 ‘‘(d) COMPROMISE AND SETOFF.—

20 ‘‘(1) COMPROMISE.—The Secretary may com21 promise the amount of a civil penalty imposed under

22 this section.

23 ‘‘(2) SETOFF.—The Government may deduct

24 the amount of a civil penalty imposed or com-
3

•HR 1052 IH

1 promised under this section from amounts it owes

2 the person liable for the penalty.’’.

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis for

4 chapter 463 of such title is amended by adding at the end

5 the following:

‘‘46317. Interference with cabin or flight crew.’’.

Æ
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

The undersigned, RodgerWeismann, Chief Financial Officer of Phase Forward Incorporated (the “Company”),in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, hereby certifiespursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

 

·                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

 

·                  theinformation in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

This certification isbeing provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of theReport, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ RODGER WEISMANN                                                                          |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Rodger Weismann  Chief Financial Officer  Phase Forward Incorporated  November 10, 2008 |

 

----
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Market Assessments

Pittsburgh

Calgary

Chicago

Oklahoma

City

Dallas

Los

Angeles

Sacramento

Denver

Salem

Houston

New 

Orleans

M

Last 30DLst yr 30D5 Yr 30

D Avg

Cumulative HDDs by City 

30 Day Intervals

Source: Bloomberg Weather Data

Atlanta

Updated

Natural Gas Trading: HDD Weather Map

J

912896

1,049

203228311

1,039

922

1,160

682684772

454465517

247269341

914928973

510476496

201205217

593682672

1,4561,2321,305

505478617
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Market Assessments

Pittsburgh

Calgary

Chicago 

Oklahoma

City

Dallas Los Angeles

Sacramento

Denver

Salem

Houston New 

Orleans 

Last 30DLst yr 30D5 Yr 30

D Avg

Cumulative CDDs by City 

30 Day Intervals

Source: Bloomberg Weather Data

Atla

Updated

Natural Gas Trading: CDD Weather Map

J

‐‐‐

462920

‐‐‐

‐‐‐

3

‐

2

342219

‐‐‐ ‐

‐‐

3

‐

5

‐‐‐

‐‐‐

120
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Market Assessments

AECO

Pricing PointBOLD –30 Day Avg PriceGreen – % increase from previous yearRed – % decrease from previous year

ChicagoCitygate

NGPL

Midcont

El Paso

Permian

SoCal 

Border

PG&E

Citygate

CIG

HSC Henry 

Hub

FGT-Z3

Day Ahead Natural Gas Prices 

30 Day Average ($/MMBtu)

Source: Bloomberg Platts Data Updated

Natural Gas Trading: Price Map

NW

Stanfield

J

$2.17

‐44%

$2.18

‐44%

$2.09

‐44%

$1.30

‐60%

$1.27

‐47%

$2.07

‐47%

$2.28

45%

$1.90

‐46%

$3.37

‐32%

$2.87

‐34%

$2.90

‐37%
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Market Assessments

Source: Derived from Bloomberg data 

Fuels Price Graphic

$0$2$4$6$8

$10$12$14

Fuel Price ($/MMBtu)

Nymex Henry HubBig Sandy Barge (Low Sulfur Coal)WTI Crude Oil
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Market Assessments

Source: Derived from Bloomberg data 

Nymex Futures Curves

Natural Gas Trading: Nymex Futures Curves

$1.80$2.00$2.20$2.40$2.60$2.80$3.00$3.20

Jan‐00 Jul‐00 Jan‐01 Jul‐01 Jan‐02

Nymex Futures Curves ($/MMBtu)

1/31/2019

1‐3‐2020

9‐2‐2019

1‐31‐2020
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Market Assessments

Natural Gas Trading : Oil Curves

Source: Derived from Bloomberg data 

Brent vs WTI

$0

$10$20$30$40$50$60$70$80$90

$100

Oil Prices ($/Barrel)

WTI Oil Price Brent Crude Oil Price
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Market Assessments

Natural Gas Trading: Nymex Futures Curve Settlement

Source: Derived from Bloomberg data 

Nymex Settlement

$1.80$1.82$1.84$1.86$1.88$1.90$1.92

Price ($/MMBtu)

Feb 2020 Nymex Contract Price Feb 2020 ICE Contract PSettlement Period Platts Feb Bidweek PricNymex Settled Price

Trade Time for January 29 2020
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Market Assessments

Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs) Prices

U

Natural Gas Trading: NGLs

$0$2$4$6$8

$10$12$14$16$18

$/MMBtu

Henry Hub Natural Gas EthanePropane Butane/Iso-ButaneNatural Gasoline
!

!

!!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

2010 NSDI CAP Awards

Ames

Washingon

March 22, 2010

Mather

Windham

Champaign

Rockville

Raleigh New Bern

Little Rock

Concord

Salem

IDAHO

HAWAII

ALASKA

MISSISSIPPI

ALABAMA

OHIO

MAINE

Saint Paul

Boston

Indianapolis

! NEW YORK

Huntington

!

Base data courtesy of the National Atlas of the United States®

Project Categories

! Return on Investment (ROI) Methodology and Business Case Development

for Multi-agency (3)

! Demonstration of Geospatial Data Partnerships across Local,

State, Tribal, and Federal Government (4)

! Metadata Trainer and Outreach Assistance (4)

! Framework Data Exchange through Automated Geo-Synchronization (3)

! FGDC-Endorsed Standards Implementation Assistance and Outreach (2)

Fifty States Initiative: Strategic and Business Plan Development (5)

Fifty States Initiative: Business Plan Development and Implementation (5)
## NO. 12

- 15

- 00037

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF A . B.,

A CHILD §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 402N D

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

This appeal is bein g dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b).

Appellant perfected her appeal on February 12, 2015. Because this is a parental rights

termination case, we notified Appellant on February 13, 2015, that her brief would be due on

March 16, 2015. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a) (requiring disposition of appeal in termination

case within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed).

When Appellant failed to file her brief by the due date, this court notified Appellant on

March 23, 20 15, that the brief was past due. The notice warned that if no motion for extension of

time to file the brief was received by April 2, 2015, the appeal could be dismissed for want of

prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1). Further, the notice informed

Appellant that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for her

failure to file the brief and a showing that Appellee had not suffered material injury thereby. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On April 2, 2015, Appellant filed a motion requesting that the time for filing her brief be

extended to April 23, 2015. The court granted the motion on April 8, 2015. The court’s order

included a notice to Appellant that no further requests for extension would be en tertained by the

court. Appellant was further warned that failure to file the brief by the extended deadline could

result in this case being referred to the court for dismissal. The deadline for filing the brief has

passed, and Appellant has not filed he r brief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of2

prosecution

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Opinion delivered April 30, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 30, 2015

NO. 12

- 15

- 00037

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A. B ., A CHILD

Appeal from the 402nd District Court

of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No . 2014

- 096)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that

this appeal be, and the s ame is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution ; and that this decision

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00147-CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Appellant

v.

Ex Parte K.M.G.,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI-07412

Honorable Lori Massey, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 6, 2009

REVERSED AND RENDERED

The parties have filed a joint motion, stating that they have fully resolved and settled all 

issues in dispute. They request that the trial court’s judgment be reversed, and that this court 

render judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Public Safety. 

The motion is GRANTED. The judgment of the trial court is REVERSED, and judgment 

is RENDERED in favor of the Texas Department of Public Safety, that K.M.G. is not entitled to 
04-09-00147-CV

-2-

an expunction of records related to her arrest for Possession of Controlled Substance because she 

was assessed and served a nine-month term of probation as a result of that arrest. 

The clerk of this court is directed to issue the mandate in this appeal contemporaneously 

with the issuance of the court’s opinion and judgment.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                              CONSENT OF KPMG LLP
 
The Board of Directors
SpeedFam Co., Ltd.:
 
We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-4 of our report dated June 26, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of SpeedFam Co., Ltd. and subsidiaries as of April 30, 1998 and 1997, and
the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three year period ended April 30, 1998, which
report appears in the May 31, 1998, Annual Report on Form 10-K of SpeedFam
International, Inc. and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts"
in the Registration Statement.
 
                                              KPMG LLP
 
Chicago, Illinois
   
February 26, 1999
No. 55785.

protests 169506-K and 160583-K (New York).

#### Koh-I-Noor Pencil Co., Inc., and F. A. O. Schwartz *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. R67/57.

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

reappraisements R60/17753, etc. (New York).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues of fact and law are the same in all material respects as those in *Kurt Orban Com*pany, *Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 20, C.A.D. 851), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis of value for the galvanized wire, galvanized soft wire, galvanized steel wire, and galvanized fencing wire in issue and that said value is the invoice unit values, net packed, exclusive of inland freight and f.o.b. charges.
No. 61670.

#### Reliance Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 302849-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
Exhibit 99.3

GMAC Mortgage
----


February 28, 2006

RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTGAGE PRODUCTS
TRUST ADMINISTRATION
c/o DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
1761 EAST ST. ANDREW PLACE
SANTA ANA, CA 92705


Re:   Annual Officers Statement of Compliance
      Year Ending 2005
      GMACM Investor Agreement # 41387  2005-AR5

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

GMAC Mortgage Corporation ("GMACM") hereby certifies to the best of our
knowledge and belief, that for the calendar year 2005:

1.    A review of the activities of the Seller / Servicer and of performance
      according to the Seller / Servicer contract has been made under such
      Officer's supervision.

2.    To the best of the undersigned Officer's knowledge, and based on such
      review, the Seller / Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this
      Agreement for such year.

3.    GMACM is currently an approved FNMA and FHLMC Servicer in good standing.

4.    If applicable, GMACM has filed the information returns with respect to the
      receipt of mortgage interest pursuant to Sections 6050H, 6050J and 6050P
      of the Code, received in a trade or business, reports of foreclosures and
      abandonment's of any Mortgaged Property and the information returns
      relating to cancellation of indebtedness income with respect to any
      Mortgaged Property.

5.    All hazard, flood, FHA mortgage insurance and primary mortgage insurance
      premiums, taxes, ground rents, assessments and other lienable items have
      been paid in connection with the mortgaged properties.

6.    All property inspections have been completed as required.

7.    Compliance relative to Adjustable Rate Mortgages has been met.

8.    Fidelity Bond and Errors and Omissions Insurance coverage is current, in
      full force and effect.


Servicer:      GMAC Mortgage Corporation

By:            /s/ Michael Kacergis
               ----------------------------------------------

Name:          Michael Kacergis

Title:         Manager
               Enterprise Risk Management
               Enterprise Servicing Group Risk and Compliance


GMAC Mortgage Corporation
500 Enterprise Road
Horsham, PA 19044
No. 52842.

#### Balfour Guthrie & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 134050-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the Third Division,

July 18, 1949

No. 53405.

protest 143525-K (New York).

#### Standard Brands, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

From an examination of the record it appeared that the laboratory report contained a clerical error in the percentage of invert sugars which was subsequently corrected by the Government chemist. Liquidation was based upon the correct quantity of total sugars. The court finding nothing to warrant disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Standard Pacific Corp., a Delaware corporation (the Company), for purposes of 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 9, 2008                                                                           
|                                                                                             
|/s/ Jeffrey V. Peterson                                                                      
|Jeffrey V. Peterson Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Chief Executive Officer and President
|                                                                                             
|/s/ Andrew H. Parnes                                                                         
|Andrew H. Parnes Executive Vice President 
Finance and Chief Financial Officer
IA

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 117

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 24, 2000

Mr. YOUNG of Florida introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2001, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 106–275, is further amended by strik4 ing the date specified in section 106(c) and inserting

5 ‘‘October 28, 2000’’.

Æ