alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 1002 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 4 - CE - 0 3 3 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
No. 49560.

#### Protests 21510-K, etc., of John Alban *&*Co., Inc., et al. *(New*York).

*243Opinion by

Kbbfé, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar ■to that the subject of Abstracts 42146, 42309, and 42178. The protests were .therefore sustained to this extent.
101 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

Note 9. Advances and Prepayments 

Advances and Prepayments as of September 30, 2022, and 2021 

(In billions of dollars) 2022 2021

Department of the Treasury ..................................................................................... 225.2 256.1

Department of Health and Human Services .............................................................. 39.2 70.1

Department of Defense ........................................................................................... 14.2 20.7

Department of Labor ............................................................................................... 10.7 13.0

All other ................................................................................................................. 8.8 9.4

 Total advances and prepayments .......................................................................... 298.1 369.3

Advances and prepayments are assets that represent funds disbursed in contemplation of the future performance of 

services, receipt of goods, the incurrence of expenditures, or the receipt of other assets. These include advances to 

contractors, grantees, Medicare providers, and state, local, territorial, and tribal governments; travel advances; and 

prepayments for items such as rents, taxes, insurance, royalties, commissions, and supplies. 

Until such time as the goods or services are received, contract terms are met or progress has been made, or prepaid 

expenses expired these should be recorded as assets. Any amounts that are subject to a refund at the time of completion 

should be transferred to accounts receivable. 

Treasury and HHS had the largest changes to advances and prepayments. Treasury’s $30.9 billion decrease represents 

additional liquidation of advances paid to state, local, territorial, and tribal governments pursuant to the COVID-19 related 

legislations enacted during FY 2021 and FY 2020. See also Note 29—COVID-19 Activity. HHS's decrease of $29.5 billion 

was primarily due to collections of COVID-19 Accelerated & Advance Payment program advances offset by the October 

2022 Prescription Drug and Medicare Advantage benefit payments which occurred on September 30, 2022, instead of 

October 1, 2022. The remaining amount of the decrease is primarily due to recognizing grant expenses at the time of payment 

to the grant recipients, beginning in March 2022.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 62 ) ll-K - (B ) -5 0 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:50AM Sheet 62 of 325P. 2 

# A 

# P. 

# T O
II-K-(Bl-5 0
TABL E FO RRSD' S FO

R INDUSTRIAL BOILERS . Lette r fro

m R.S . Elder , Radia nt o E . Medine , EEA . Augus t 5 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-5 0
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION



The undersigned hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 of The Phoenix Companies, Inc. (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                  |                         |                      |        |                                
|----------------- | ----------------------- | -------------------- | ------ | -------------------------------
|/s/ Dona D. Young |                         | /s/ Peter A. Hofmann
|Name:             | Dona D. Young           |                      | Name:  | Peter A. Hofmann               
|Title:            | Chairman, President and |                      | Title: | Senior Executive Vice President
|                  | Chief Executive Officer |                      |        | and Chief Financial Officer    
|Date:             | March 5, 2009           |                      | Date:  | March 5, 2009                  



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The Phoenix Companies, Inc. and will be retained by The Phoenix Companies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### Selected applications of hydrologic science and research in Maryland, Delaware, and Washington, D.C., 2001-2003

By: Lisa D. Olsen

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs12603

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# C_2017382EN.01004001.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)

(Case T-206/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark TRES TOROS 3 - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark for wine containing a geographical indication - Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 382/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Verdúguez, SL (Villanueva de Alcardete, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and A. Muñiz Rodríguez, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 (Case R 407/2015-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TRES TOROS 3 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bodegas Verdúguez, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bodegas Verdúguez, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

1

---
# C_2016156EN.01002901.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 17 February 2016 — José María Pérez Retamero v TNT Express Worldwide, S.L., Transportes Sapirod, S.L. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

(Case C-97/16)

(2016/C 156/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: José María Pérez Retamero

Claimant:

Defendants: TNT Express Worldwide, S.L., Transportes Sapirod, S.L. and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the definition of ‘mobile worker’ given in Article 3(d) of Directive 2002/15/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding domestic legal provisions such as Article 1.3(g) of the Workers’ Statute, which provides that ‘persons providing a transport service by virtue of administrative authorisations of which they are the holders, carried out ... using vehicles ... of which ownership or a direct power of disposal is vested in them cannot be regarded as ‘mobile workers’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the definition of ‘mobile worker’ given in Article 3(d) of Directive 2002/15/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding domestic legal provisions such as Article 1.3(g) of the Workers’ Statute, which provides that ‘persons providing a transport service by virtue of administrative authorisations of which they are the holders, carried out ... using vehicles ... of which ownership or a direct power of disposal is vested in them cannot be regarded as ‘mobile workers’?

1

| 2. | Must the second subparagraph of Article 3(e) of the directive (‘[f]or the purposes of this directive, those drivers who do not satisfy these criteria shall be subject to the same obligations and benefit from the same rights as those provided for mobile workers by this directive’) be interpreted as meaning that, if none or only one of the criteria laid down for a person to be regarded as a ‘self-employed driver’ is fulfilled, the view must be taken that the person concerned is a ‘mobile worker’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the second subparagraph of Article 3(e) of the directive (‘[f]or the purposes of this directive, those drivers who do not satisfy these criteria shall be subject to the same obligations and benefit from the same rights as those provided for mobile workers by this directive’) be interpreted as meaning that, if none or only one of the criteria laid down for a person to be regarded as a ‘self-employed driver’ is fulfilled, the view must be taken that the person concerned is a ‘mobile worker’?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35).

1

---
Case 2:05-cr-00032-JS Document 176 Filed 07/30/08 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:05-cr-00032-JS Document 176 Filed 07/30/08 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:05-cr-00032-JS Document 176 Filed 07/30/08 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:05-cr-00032-JS Document 176 Filed 07/30/08 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:05-cr-00032-JS Document 176 Filed 07/30/08 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:05-cr-00032-JS Document 176 Filed 07/30/08 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:05-cr-00032-JS Document 176 Filed 07/30/08 Page 7 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20135-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 7 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY MARION, )

 ) Civil Action

Plaintiff ) No. 05-CV-01288

 )

vs. )

 )

THE AGERE SYSTEMS, INC. )

 SICKNESS AND ACCIDENT )

 DISABILITY BENEFIT PLAN FOR )

 OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYEES, )

 )

Defendant )

O R D E R

NOW, this 26th day of March, 2008, upon consideration

of Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 29,

2007; upon consideration of the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

of Defendant The Agere Systems Inc. Sickness and Accident

Disability Benefit for Occupational Employees filed July 27,

2007; upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Answer to Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment, which answer was filed August 13,

2007; upon consideration of the briefs of the parties; after oral

argument conducted September 18, 2007 before the undersigned; and

for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Memorandum,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for

Summary Judgment filed June 29, 2007 is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment of Defendant The Agere Systems Inc. Sickness and

Accident Disability Benefit for Occupational Employees filed 

July 27, 2007 is granted.

Case 2:05-cv-01288-JKG Document 43 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 2
-iiIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor

of defendant The Agere Systems Inc. Sickness and Accident

Disability Benefit for Occupational Employees, and against

plaintiff Jeffrey Marion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall

marked this case closed for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ James Knoll Gardner 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01288-JKG Document 43 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HARRIS KUTTNER, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

UNGERER & CO., INC., et al. : NO. 05-1257

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of April, 2005, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion of plaintiffs Harris Kuttner and Elyse

Kuttner to remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania is GRANTED on the ground that

the proper consent of all defendants to removal was not obtained. 

See Green v. Target Stores, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 448 (E.D. Pa.

2004); Landman v. Borough of Bristol, 896 F. Supp. 406 (E.D. Pa.

1995).

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

J.

Case 2:05-cv-01257-HB Document 16 Filed 04/20/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

HAYES : 02-3937

MCKNIGHT : 02-3954

SKOGLULND : 02-3979

BALLIRO : 02-4111

SADEIK : 02-4129

HAYWARD, et al. : 02-4133

WAINER, et al. : 02-4177

VAN STREEPEN, et al. : 02-4199

BAILEY : 02-4231

ABERCROMBIE, et al. : 02-4235

TRESSLAR, et al. : 02-4291

CONLEY, et al. : 02-4296

GLADHART, et al. : 02-4312

:

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-04199-CMR 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:

________________________________________

Cynthia M. Rufe, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04199-CMR Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16I0011. BROADRICK L. SHROPSHIRE v. THE STATE.

Broadrick Shropshire has been indicted for malice murder, felony murder, and

a number of other charges. Shropshire filed an application for interlocutory appeal in

this Court, seeking review of the trial court's order granting the State’s motion to

disqualify his defense counsel. In State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524 (1) (322 SE2d 711)

(1984), the Supreme Court directed that we transfer "all cases in which either a

sentence of death or life imprisonment has been imposed upon conviction of murder,

and all pre-conviction appeals in murder cases" to that Court. This instruction was

upheld in State v. Murray, 286 Ga. 258, 259 (1) (687 SE2d 790) (2009) (if the murder

count of the indictment remains pending below, jurisdiction of the appeal lies in the

Supreme Court). Accordingly, this application is hereby TRANSFERRED to the

Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/09/2015

September 09, 2015
No. 55157.

#### The Alkahn Woven Label Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests-113890-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
Form 10-KSB
Network Capital, Inc.
File No. 000-32155

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 -
              CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

In connection with the Annual Report of Network Capital,  Inc. (Company) on Form
10-KSB for the year ended  March 31,  2006,  as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (Report),  I,  Bruce  Cairney,  Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  adopted  as  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: July 12, 2006                           By: /s/ Bruce Cairney
      -------------                              -------------------------------
                                                                   Bruce Cairney
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Network Capital,  Inc. and will be retained by Network Capital, Inc.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
# C_2016296EN.01002202.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Council of State) (France) lodged on 13 June 2016 — Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (SNITEM) and Philips France v Premier ministre and Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

(Case C-329/16)

(2016/C 296/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Syndicat national de l’industrie des technologies médicales (SNITEM) and Philips France

Applicants:

Defendants: Premier ministre and Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Must [Council] Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 [concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1)] be interpreted as meaning that software, the purpose of which is to offer to prescribers practising in towns, a health establishment or a medico-social establishment support for determining a drug prescription, in order to improve the safety of prescription, facilitate the work of the prescriber, encourage conformity of the prescription with national regulatory requirements and reduce the cost of treatment at the same quality, constitutes a medical device within the meaning of that directive, where that software has at least one function that permits the use of data specific to a patient to help his doctor issue his prescription, in particular by detecting contraindications, drug interactions and excessive doses, even though it does not itself act in or on the human body?

---