alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015371EN.01004201.xml

| 9.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/42

---

Action brought on 17 September 2015 — Regent University v OHIM — Regent’s College (REGENT UNIVERSITY)

(Case T-538/15)

(2015/C 371/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Regent University (Virginia Beach, United States) (represented by: D. Wilkinson, Solicitor and E. Himsworth, Barrister)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Regent’s College (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘REGENT UNIVERSITY’ — Community trade mark registration No 4 711 594

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2015 in Case R 1859/2014-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | remit the matter for further consideration by the Board; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the matter for further consideration by the Board;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board;

| — | order the cancellation applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board, in the event that the cancellation applicant becomes an intervening party in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the cancellation applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board, in the event that the cancellation applicant becomes an intervening party in these proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringements of Article 53(1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringements of Article 53(1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6808

FREDDIE RICHARD JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DENNIS BUSH, Warden Lee Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (0:14-cv-01760-TLW)

Submitted: October 26, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freddie Richard Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Richard Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate 

judge recommended that the petition be dismissed as untimely and 

advised Jones that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate 

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review 

of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have 

been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. 

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Jones has waived appellate 

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# 2017_09 Pivot Table 4

# 4

&F	

&P/&N
Exhibit 99.5

CERTIFICATION

I, Scott C. Balfour, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F/A of Emera
Incorporated; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 1, 2019

/s/ Scott C. Balfour

Scott C. Balfour

President & Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 942 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 942

Expressing support for the honoring of the City Commission of the City 
             of Lauderdale Lakes, Broward County, Florida.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2018

    Mr. Hastings (for himself, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Wilson of 
    Florida, Mr. Deutch, and Ms. Frankel of Florida) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for the honoring of the City Commission of the City 
             of Lauderdale Lakes, Broward County, Florida.

Whereas the City of Lauderdale Lakes, Broward County, Florida, was incorporated 
        on June 22, 1961;
Whereas the City is located in central Broward County on United States Highway 
        441;
Whereas originally popular as a retirement area for northeasterners, notably New 
        Yorkers and those of the Jewish faith, the population, toward the end of 
        the 20th century, grew to include those with Caribbean and African-
        American heritage;
Whereas the current population of the City numbers approximately 35,000 people, 
        consisting of approximately 15,000 households;
Whereas, in 2014, by vote of the City electorate, the government of the City was 
        changed to provide for a governing body of five elected officials, 
        including a Mayor elected at-large;
Whereas, in November 2016, the City held municipal elections and the electorate 
        voted into office five women of color making the City of Lauderdale 
        Lakes the only city in the State of Florida with a City Commission 
        composed entirely of women; and
Whereas the current City Commission consists of the Mayor, Hazelle Rogers, Vice 
        Mayor Beverly Williams, and City Commissioners Sandra Davey, Gloria 
        Lewis, Veronica Edwards Phillips: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, that the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the City of Lauderdale Lakes, Broward 
        County, Florida, for having elected the first-ever city 
        governing body of its size that is comprised solely of women of 
        color; and
            (2) commends the City of Lauderdale Lakes, Broward County, 
        Florida, for its progressive goals of minority representation 
        by both women and people of color.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2018166EN.01000501.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2018 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA v European Commission

(Case C-244/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 - Placing on the market of plant protection products and establishing a list of candidates for substitution - Inclusion of active substance metalaxyl in that list - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - Regulatory act that does not entail implementing measures - Individually concerned person))

(2018/C 166/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, C. Vila Gisbert and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogadas)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: I. Galindo Martín and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Industrias Químicas del Vallés SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOROTHY BUSH :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4135

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04135-LDD Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

159) IV-C-126 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:59 AM Sheet 159 of 232 
P.2 

fj&J\ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ^ ~

C

 " ' ^ ^ 

\-4*i*^ / ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

••r . ",. 

M

i P-JO*** 

OFFICE OF 

Ary, . , •. AIR AND FIADIATION 

SEP I 1938 

Ms. Carol Scott 

American Petroleum Institute 

1220 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Ms. Scott: 

On June 30, 1988 EPA held a public workshop on the 

proposed test procedures for evaporative and refueling emission 

which had accompanying its refueling and volatility NPRMs. At 

that workshop we described several changes to the proposed 

procedures designed to simplify the refueling test and to 

insure that non-integrated refueling controls or 

evaporative-only controls would have equivalent in-use 

performance to integrated refueling control systems. 

Enclosed for your review is a copy of draft regulations 

embodying the changes described at the workshop, plus other 

lesser changes resulting from EPA's review of test procedure 

comments. These regulations will give you full details of the 

changes which we are anticipating for our upcoming reproposal 

action. If you have any questions, please contact Peter 

Hutchins of my staff at (313) 668-4340. To assist in our 

incorporation of your views on these draft regulations into our 

reproposal, we request that you supply us your comments by no 

later than September 15, 1988. 

Sincerely yours, 

Gray, <Jr. 

Director •• 

Emission Control Technology Division 

Enclosure 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

6309W 
r P.3 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

SEP - 2 1988 

CF.MT:./-.'. u'-JCKET 

l_>, -, .-, - - yr.\
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1167 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to evaluate and consider revising regulations relating to emergency medical equipment requirements for passenger aircraft. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2017 

Mr. SCHATZ (for himself and Mr. MORAN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to evaluate and consider revising regulations 

relating to emergency medical equipment requirements 

for passenger aircraft. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Airplane Kids In Tran5 sit Safety Act of 2017’’ or the ‘‘Airplane KITS Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1167 IS

1 SEC. 2. EMERGENCY MEDICAL EQUIPMENT ON PASSENGER 

2 AIRCRAFT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the 

4 date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 

5 the Federal Aviation Administration shall evaluate and re6 vise, as appropriate, the regulations under part 121 of title 

7 14, Code of Federal Regulations, regarding the emergency 

8 medical equipment requirements, including the contents of 

9 first-aid kits, applicable to all certificate holders operating 

10 passenger aircraft under that part. 

11 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In carrying out subsection 

12 (a), the Administrator shall consider whether the min13 imum contents of approved emergency medical kits, in14 cluding approved first-aid kits, include appropriate medi15 cations and equipment to meet the emergency medical 

16 needs of children. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A1                     1,383,987.28         445,749.96         0.00        118,250,250.04
A2                       598,656.34               0.00         0.00         51,313,400.00
APO                            0.00             244.39         0.00            121,023.41
AR                             0.58             100.00         0.00                  0.00
B1                        35,792.30           4,390.71         0.00          3,064,609.29
B2                         9,201.73           1,128.80         0.00            787,871.20
B3                         5,119.85             628.07         0.00            438,371.94
B4                         5,108.19             626.63         0.00            437,373.37
B5                         3,067.25             376.27         0.00            262,623.73
B6                         2,249.83             151.78       225.72            263,489.46

</TABLE>
FY21 PIR Monthly (Check) Volume Report

AGCY_NM Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21 Jul‐21 

Salary Payments/Allotments 74,158 69,878 81,256 59,908 66,230 76,124 70,333 69,298 78,802 68,582 

 

Benefit Payments:

OPM 14,160 14,424 14,654 13,051 12,369 13,522 13,856 13,273 14,587 14,140 RRB 4,596 4,415 4,499 4,698 4,666 4,847 4,745 4,645 4,812 4,715 SSA 651,588 606,014 1,078,133 278,318 614,561 757,841 628,234 635,953 751,767 586,243 DOL Black Lung 1,225 1,247 1,408 951 1,191 1,173 1,164 1,124 1,119 1,087 

SSI 583,752 36,485 560,618 37,569 297,643 288,396 528,512 35,157 284,513 518,445 VA 211,812 19,348 210,066 22,691 115,783 119,914 206,301 20,580 113,066 201,566 Subtotal 1,467,133 681,933 1,869,378 357,278 1,046,213 1,185,693 1,382,812 710,732 1,169,864 1,326,196 

Vendor Payments 151,997 136,447 151,092 137,080 124,203 192,407 146,123 141,331 165,970 154,808 Miscellaneous Payments 727,137 420,230 417,673 326,162 342,887 454,278 548,334 443,775 1,751,447 491,805 

VA pandemic‐related checks 1,264,117 77,652 

Tax Refund Payments 1,548,564 1,054,806 826,460 171,077 2,187,709 3,785,991 4,681,795 4,058,601 3,015,884 2,666,728 EIP Payments 817,430 660,612 218,299 25,986,334 2,350,612 15,732,538 6,555,810 2,079,958 1,596,435 808,531 Advance Child Tax Credit 5,249,950 

Total 4,786,419 3,023,906 3,564,158 27,037,839 6,117,854 21,427,031 13,385,207 7,503,695 7,778,402 10,766,600 1

Total Non‐EIP 3,968,989 2,363,294 3,345,859 1,051,505 3,767,242 5,694,493 6,829,397 5,423,737 6,181,967 9,958,069 1

Total Non‐EIP/Non‐CTC 3,968,989 2,363,294 3,345,859 1,051,505 3,767,242 5,694,493 6,829,397 5,423,737 6,181,967 4,708,119 

Total Non‐EIP/Non‐CTC/Non‐VA 3,968,989 2,363,294 3,345,859 1,051,505 3,767,242 5,694,493 6,829,397 5,423,737 4,917,850 4,630,467
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEAFJl'JGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of Clear Day Aviation, Inc. 

Docket No. FAA-2015-2349 

Case No. 2013EA390075 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

AGENCY'S WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

The Agency, under 14 CFR Section 13.215 and pursuant to a settlement 

agreement, withdraws its Complaint in this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Enforcement 

By "'21rd1&: 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office ofthe Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Northeast Team 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

T: 718-553-3258 

F: 718-995-5699 

E: Zachary.Bennan@FAA.GOV 

Dated: March 11, 2016 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that on this day copies of the foregoing Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint 

were sent first class mail and fax as follows: 

Judge J. E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Offtce of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Mr. H. Bruce Brandon 

Respondent's Counsel 

3439 South Aviation Drive 

Burlington, NC 27215 

T: 336-358-6300 

F: 336-286-7050 

I hereby certify that on this day copies of the foregoing Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint 

were sent first class mail as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Date: 

Ljs Hooks 

Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

2
Appendix 5 Debt Collection Strategies

A5-1

Quick Referral to Cross-Servicing
Debt Collection Strategies

A5-2

Debts Sent to Litigation
Debt Collection Strategies

A5-3

Collateralized Debts
This page is left intentionally blank.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10929 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. TERESA SMITH Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-3-12 Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Teresa Smith appeals the 309-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The sole issue raised by Smith is whether the distric t court erred in denying her a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Smith contends that she demonstrated her acceptance ofresponsibility notwithstanding that she filed objections to the probation officer’s drug-quantity determination. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 21, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10929

2 Deferring to the trial court’s unique position, this court examines the denial ofa reduction for acceptance ofresponsibility under a standard ofreview even more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard. U nited States v. Outlaw , 319 F.3d 701, 705 (5th Cir. 2003). This court “will affirm a sentencing court’s decision not to award a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 unless it is without foundation.” U nited States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 458 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court determined that Smith contested drug quantities that she knew she had received and therefore did not clearly demonstrate that she was entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Because there was a foundation for the district court’s determination, its finding is not clearly erroneous. See Outlaw , 319 F.3d at 705; Solis 299 F.3d at 458. Accordingly, Smith’s sentence is AFFIRMED.