alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018052EN.01001101.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Anstar Oy

(Case C-630/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products - Harmonised standard EN 1090-1:2009+A1:2011 - Criteria for determining the scope of a standard adopted by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) in accordance with a mandate of the European Commission - Anchors to be fixed into concrete before it sets and used for fastening facade elements and masonry supports to the building frame))

(2018/C 052/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Anstar Oy

Other party: Turvallisuus- ja kemikaalivirasto (Tukes)

Other party:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Harmonised standard EN 1090-1:2009+A1:2011, ‘Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures — Part 1: Requirements for conformity assessment of structural components’, must be interpreted as meaning that products, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, intended to be fixed into concrete before it sets fall within its scope if they have a structural function, in the sense that their removal from a structure would immediately reduce its resistance.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

1

---
Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) Components

Agency

Allocation Transfer Agency Identifier

Agency Identifier

Availability

Beginning Period Of Availability

Ending Period Of Availability

Availability Type Code

Account Codes

Main Account Code

Sub Account Code

Appropriation Account Balances

Total Budgetary Resources

Current Period Ending Date

Budget Authority Appropriated Amount Current Period Ending DateBudget Authority Unobligated Balance Brought Forward

Fiscal Year Beginning

Adjustments to Unobligated Balance Brought Forward Current Period Ending DateOther Budgetary Resources Amount Current Period Ending Date Contract Authority Amount - Total Current Period Ending Date

Borrowing Authority Amount - Total Current Period Ending DateSpending Authority from Offsetting Collections Amount - Total Current Period Ending Date

Status of Budgetary Resources - Total

Current Period Ending Date

Obligations Incurred - Total by TAS* Current Period Ending DateUnobligated Balance - Total* Current Period Ending Date

Gross Outlays

Gross Outlay Amount by TAS Current Period Ending Date

Deobligations, Recoveries and Refunds

Deobligations, Recoveries, Refunds By TAS Current Period Ending Date

GSDM RSS v1.1: File A - Appropriations Amount

*Total amount includes derived values not represented in this diagram

Legend

Identifying Element

Amount With Context

Date Context

Amount

Conceptual Model Container
No. 64783.

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States,

protest 59/27121 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rosary bracelets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *The J. Orlando Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 115, C.D. 2114), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

TAYLOR : 02-3877

JACKSON : 02-3879

LIAGA, et al. : 02-3920

KARGE, et al. : 02-3927

GREEN, et al. : 02-3942

MARKS : 02-3969

FULTZ : 02-3977

RACKLEY : 02-4118

THOMPSON, et al. : 02-4125

RUSSELL, et al. : 02-4127

ALCALA : 02-4131

ANDERSON : 02-4193

CAGAPE, et al. : 02-4227

MONZON, et al. : 02-4241

SANDOVAL, et al. : 02-4282

CHAPMAN, et al. : 02-4289

DUNHAM, et al. : 02-4304

FORTUNATO, et al. : 02-4315

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

Case 2:02-cv-04193-JCJ Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

J. Curtis Joyner, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04193-JCJ Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit
      23.1**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statement No.
      333-125814 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 8, 2006 relating to the
      consolidated financial statements of EnerTeck Corporation as of and for the
      year
      ended December 31, 2005 included in this Annual Report on Form
      10-KSB.








/s/
      Malone & Bailey, PC


Malone
      & Bailey, PC


www.malone-bailey.com


Houston,
      Texas





April
      16,
      2007
UNITED STATES
                     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                           Washington, D.C. 20549

                                FORM 10-KSB/A-1

[X]  ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
     EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     For the fiscal year ended     December 31, 2003
                                   -----------------

[ ]  TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
     ACT OF 1934

          For the transition period from _____________ to ____________

     Commission file number   000-31945
                              ---------

                        POWDER RIVER BASIN GAS CORP.
                       -----------------------------
        (Name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)

                          104, 3208  8th Avenue NE
                          Calgary, Alberta T2A 7V8
                               (403) 263-4145
         (Address of principal executive office & telephone number)

     Colorado                                               84-1521645
(State of incorporation)                    (IRS Employer Identification #)

     Securities registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act:   None

     Securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:
                       Common Stock, $.001 par value

[x]  Check whether the issuer (1) has filed all reports required to be
     filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
     during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
     registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
     subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

     [X] Yes [  ] No

[x]  Check if disclosure of delinquent filers in response to Item 405 of
     Regulation SB is not contained in this form, and no disclosure will be
     contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge,in definitive proxy
     or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of
     this Form 10-KSB or any amendment to this Form 10-KSB

     State issuer's revenues for the most recent fiscal year: $0

     The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity
     held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the average bid and
     asked price of such common equity, as of December 31, 2003 was
     $1,298,859.

     The current number of shares outstanding of Powder River Basin Gas
     Corporation common stock is 46,387,833 as of December 31, 2003.



This amended Form 10-KSB in being filed to include Exhibits 31 and 32, which
were inadvertently omitted from our original 10KSB filing on March 30, 2004.






                                 SIGNATURES

     In accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, the
Registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


(Registrant):                      Powder River Basin Gas Corporation

/s/ Brian D. Fox                   Date:  April 12, 2004
Brian D. Fox, President
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0566 Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-271-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update 

accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Leading edge fluid

Drainage

Modification

(Group 1-6)

94.5 $8,032.5

0

$33,609 $41,641.50 143 $5,954,734.5

0

Leading edge fluid

Drainage

Modification

(Group 7-10)

90.0 $7,650.0

0

$29,304 $36,954.00 115 $4,914,882.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $10,869,617

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated 

Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 
*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain

for either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements 

for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
No. 52908.

#### Railway Express Agency *v.*United States,

protest 123562-K (Galveston).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was established that the ultimate consignee had used but $141.55 of the $300 exemption allowed under the statute. In view of the record presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PATRICIA ANN DECH, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION 

:

v. :

 : NO. 04-CV-2786

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security, :

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of January, 2006 after careful consideration of the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment, and review of the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, to which no Objections have been filed, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, in part and GRANTED in

part. The Motion is GRANTED, only to the extent that her request for a REMAND

is GRANTED; and

4. Upon remand, the Commissioner shall re-evaluate the medical evidence

presented in this case. Particular attention should be afforded in: 1) assessing

Plaintiff’s credibility; 2) assessing both her physical and psychological impairment;

3) seeking advice from a medical or consulting expert to assess the combined

impact of Plaintiff’s mental and physical ailments; and 4) presenting to the VE

each credible limitation in a proper hypothetical question.

BY THE COURT:

s/Clifford Scott Green

CLIFFORD SCOTT GREEN, S.J.

Case 2:04-cv-02786-CG Document 17 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

March 11, 1954

No. 57915.

protests 130249-K, etc. (New York).

#### Copeland & Thompson, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items described under “A” in-paragraph 1 of the stipulation of counsel, except such as may be valued at less than $2.50, consist of china figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) As to the items entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to May 28, 1950, at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a); and (2) as to the items entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption subsequent to May 28, 1950, at 10 percent under said paragraph 1547 (a), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476).
No. 63009.

#### Robert G. Lynch *v.*United States,

protest 58/11243 (New York).

Opinion by Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59008-59009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23417]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, October 18, 2013

[[Page 59009]]

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and 
Examinations. In the event that the times or dates of this or any 
future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the 
new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's 
Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melissa D. Jurgens, 202-418-5516.

 Natise Stowe,
 Executive Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2013-23417 Filed 9-23-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
Case No. 8,975.

#### MAIN v. MURRAY.

[Cited in Corbet v. Johnson. Case No. 3.218. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.7

DISCLAIMER:

NON-BINDING ENGLISH TRANSLATION FROM THE GERMAN. ONLY THE GERMAN TEXT IS LEGALLY
BINDING.

                                  TRANSLATION

Dr. jur Henning Schulte-Noelle
Chairman of the Management Board

Herrn
Dr. Hans-Jurgen Schinzler
Chairman of the Management Board
Munchner-Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft
Koniginstrasse 107

80791 Munich

                                                          Munich, March 20, 2003

Dear Mr. Schinzler,

     I refer to the talks we have had over the last days concerning our planned
capital measure and the future level of our mutual participation. First of all,
I would like to sincerely thank you for your cooperation, which is an essential
requirement for successful completion of this measure. For proper procedure, I
would like to outline our mutual understanding in this letter.

     We had spoken about the fact that in connection with the capital increase
of Allianz AG, Munich Re will partially exercise its subscription rights by way
of a so-called operation blanche, so that after completion of the capital
increase, Munich Re's share of ownership of Allianz AG will be approximately
15%. Munich Re will cooperate with the Subscription Rights Consortium with
respect to the sale of the unused subscription rights.

     In return, Allianz AG will reduce its shareholding in Munich Re to
16 -- 18% by the end of 2003 and to approximately 15% in the course of 2004. As
a result, to the extent permissible under applicable accounting principles, we
will no longer treat our participation in your company at equity.
<PAGE>

DISCLAIMER:

NON-BINDING ENGLISH TRANSLATION FROM THE GERMAN; FOR DISCUSSION ONLY. ONLY THE
GERMAN TEXT IS LEGALLY BINDING. CONFIDENTIAL: DO NOT DISCLOSE

Dr. jur Henning Schulte-Noelle
Chairman of the Management Board

     The agreement on the Principles of Cooperation of May 2000 (in connection
with our agreement regarding cancellation of December 2002) as well as the
Agreement in Principle of April 1, 2001 in the version currently in force, will
be modified accordingly by the aforementioned arrangement. It is our common
understanding that the ownership quotas defined in these agreements will be
reduced to approximately 15% on both sides. In all other respects, the
aforementioned agreements as well as the special agreement on the mutual ceding
of quotas of December 2001 remain effective unmodified.

     Dear Mr. Schinzler, it is important for me to emphasize that our longtime
partnership will not be affected by the upcoming changes necessitated by general
developments. We will continue our positive mutual cooperation under a modified
framework as well.

     I would be most obliged if you could confirm in a short written reply that
I have correctly reiterated our arrangements.

Sincerely,

/s/ SCHULTE-NOELLE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONALD and BEVERLY CASTELAZ :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4192

Plaintiffs, :

:

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 SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

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-04192-HH Document 8 Filed 09/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the period indicated




This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.Dated: February 14, 2011
By:
/s/ Kenneth K. WestbrookKenneth K. WestbrookChief Executive Officer
DAVIS, PARRY, TYLER & WRIGHT

By: Christopher H. Wright, Esquire

Attorney I.D. No.: 27091

1525 Locust Street, 14th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney for Defendant Verizon

(215) 732-3755

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KATHY L. OAKES : Civil Action No. 02-2749

:

vs. :

:

HENKELS AND McCOY, et al :

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, VERIZON (FORMERLY KNOWN

AS BELL ATLANTIC) TO CROSSCLAIM OF

DANELLA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND LEVEL 3COMMUNICATIONS

1. Denied. Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., hereby incorporates its answer to Plaintiff’s

Complaint. 

2. Denied. Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. specifically denies liability to Plaintiff and further

denies joint and several liability to Plaintiff or to Defendants Danella Construction Corporation and

Level 3 Communications.

WHEREFORE, Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. denies any and all liability as allegedand requests

judgment in its favor. 

DAVIS, PARRY, TYLER & WRIGHT

By:________________________________________

 CHRISTOPHER H. WRIGHT, ESQUIRE

 Attorney for Defendant, Verizon

Case 2:02-cv-02749-EL Document 21 Filed 07/30/2002 Page 1 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Christopher H. Wright, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Answer of Defendant, Verizon (formerly known as Bell Atlantic) to Crossclaim of

Danella Construction Corporation and Level 3 Communications was served on the following

counsel of record and unrepresented parties by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid:

Dennis E. Block, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 

Block & Gatusso

Washington Professional Campus

900 Route 168, Suite H1

Turnersville, NJ 08012

Andrew L. Salvatore, Esquire Attorney for Henkels & McCoy

Kelly, McLaughlin, Foster, Bracaglia,

 Daly, Trabucco & White

1617 J. F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1690

Philadelphia, PA 19103-1815

Robert C. Mickle, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Danella Construction Co.

Kennedy, Walker & Lipski & Level 3 Communications

1818 Market Street, Suite 2510

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Conrad O. Kattner, Esquire Attorney for PECO Energy Company

PECO Energy Co. Legal Department / Exelon Communications

2301 Market Street, P.O. Box 8699

Philadelphia, PA 19101-8699

Kenneth S. Butensky, Esquire Attorney for City of Philadelphia

City of Philadelphia Law Department

One Parkway

1515 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19102

John O.J. Shellenberger, Esquire Attorney for Pennsylvania Department

Office of Attorney General of Transportation

21 S. 12th Street, 3rd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3603

Case 2:02-cv-02749-EL Document 21 Filed 07/30/2002 Page 2 of 3
Colette A. Pete, Esquire Attorney for Philadelphia Gas Works

Philadelphia Gas Works

800 W. Montgomery Avenue

Philadelphia, PA 19122

DAVIS, PARRY, TYLER & WRIGHT

By:___________________________________

 CHRISTOPHER H. WRIGHT, ESQUIRE

 Attorney for Defendant, Verizon 

Date: July 29, 2002

Case 2:02-cv-02749-EL Document 21 Filed 07/30/2002 Page 3 of 3