alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Action brought on 17 July 2006 — L'Air Liquide v Commission

(Case T-185/06)

(2006/C 212/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: L'Air Liquide SA (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Saint Esteben and M. Pittie, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the applicant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C (2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate, by which the Commission found that the undertakings to which the decision was addressed, including the applicant, infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating in a number of agreements and concerted practices consisting in exchanges of information between competitors and agreements on prices and production capacities as well as monitoring the implementation of those agreements in the hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate sector.

In support of its claims, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

By its first plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in deciding that the matters which it put forward in order to presume L'Air Liquide jointly and severally liable because of the conduct of its subsidiary were sufficient having regard to the criteria established by the case-law and that the Commission therefore misapplied the rules governing the attribution to a parent company of the conduct of its subsidiary and thus infringed Article 81 EC.

By its second plea in law, the applicant claims that by wrongly invoking the presumption of attribution with regard to L'Air Liquide, the Commission also improperly reversed the burden of proof and thus infringed the applicant's right to a fair hearing.

By its third plea in law, the applicant argues that, even if the Court of First Instance considers that the Commission was justified in presuming the attribution to L'Air Liquide of the conduct of its subsidiary Chemoxal, the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state its reasons in that it did not discuss any of the evidence put forward by L'Air Liquide to demonstrate Chemoxal's independence and thus reversed that presumption of joint and several liability, which is only a rebuttable presumption.

By its fourth plea in law, the applicant maintains that the Commission has not shown sufficiently in law and fact its legitimate interest in bringing proceedings against the applicant in the present proceedings by adopting, in spite of the time-bar on its power to penalise L'Air Liquide, a decision establishing L'Air Liquide's commission of an infringement of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and that in default of such a legitimate interest, the Commission therefore had no power to adopt such a decision against the applicant.

----
INNOVATIONS INC 2108 St. George Ave. Saskatoon, SK S7M OK7 Canada Phone: 306-955-9907 Toll Free: 800-979-9794 Fax: 306-955-9906

August 6, 2015
Federal Aviation Administration 800IndependentAve.SVV VVashington D.C 20591
Ref: Petition for an amendmentto grantofexemption# 11281 paragraph 13. FAA DocketNo. FAA-2014-0963

To Whom It May Concern,
As President ofDraganfly Innovations Inc we respectfully request consideration for an amendment to our 333 exemption (#11281) whichwould allow for exceptions to the requirement 13 13. Under this grant ofexemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, commercial,private, recreational, or sportpilot certificate. The PIC must also hold a current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver's license issued by a state, the District ofColombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate

. Specificallywe are requestingthatthis exemption allow Benjamin Miller who has extensive experience operating Draganflyer multirotor systems (Draganflyer X4P, X4ES, X6, and Guardian) since 2008 actas a PIC in the operation ofDraganflyer systems in US National Airspace as specified in our Exemption and associated COA. Benjamin Miller has been operating Draganflyer systems under thejurisdiction and authority ofthe Mesa County Sheriffs Office since 2008. With Ben's continuing demonstration of competence as a pilot and in developing a leading Public Safety sUAS Operations Program we are proud to say after appropriate testing and demonstration of skills, we have provided him with the designation of beinga Certified Draganfly Innovations Flight Instructor.
We believe there is substantial merit to allow an amendment to exemption 11281 paragraph 13. Whereby the FAA will allow, Benjamin Joseph Miller, to operate all UAS identified in exemption 11281 having completed all mandatory flight training required by the MCSO, numerous operational missions in command, 12 hours of single engine, manned aircraft, flight training, attainment of Flight instructor certification by Draganfly Innovations and holding a driver's license in the state of Colorado. Draganfly Innovations Inc. www.draganfly.com info@draganfly.comINNOVATIO N S INC



### We believe Ben's VAS operations experience during his tenure with the Mesa County Sheriffs Office UnmannedAircraftprogram creates an equivalentlevel ofknowledge and safetythatwill allow him to operate VAS safely under exemption 11281.
Your interest in providing public service employees increased opportunities for professional developmentin collaboration with Private Industryis appreciated.
Respectfully,

Zenon Dragan President

Draganfly Innovations Inc. www.rctoys.com info@rctoys.com Page 2
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust IV (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P.
for the period ended March 26, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig J. Nargesian,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted 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 results of operations of the Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: May 6, 2004
__________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
### Comments on draft PGP Dave Scott to: Jack Faulk 01/25/2010 04:55 PM

Jack,

See attached comments from Indiana (pesticide SLA). Thanks for the opportunity to participate.

-- Dave Scott Pesticide Administrator Office of Indiana State Chemist 175 S. University St. West Lafayette, IN 47907-2063 Phone: (765) 494-1593 Fax: (765) 494-4331 URL: www.isco.purdue.edu
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. :

: CIVIL ACTION

v. :

: NO. 02-CV-4360

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2004, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to

File a First Amended Complaint Filed by Plaintiff Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (Doc. No.

24) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________

R. Barclay Surrick, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 26 Filed 03/24/2004 Page 1 of 1
**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**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Flagship Global Health, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three and nine month periods ended September
      30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Form 10-QSB"), I, Fred F. Nazem, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;




(1)
                  The Form 10-QSB
        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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
        financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: November 13, 2007By:/s/
                    Fred F. NazemFred
                  F. Nazem, Chief Executive
                  Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification

I, Anthony R. Cole, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BCSB Bankcorp, Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |                              
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: February 13, 2008 |  |                              
|                        |  | /s/ Anthony R. Cole          
|                        |  | Anthony R. Cole              
|                        |  | Executive Vice President     
|                        |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2015118EN.01003201.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/32

---

Appeal brought on 20 January 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12, Hristov v Commission and EMA

(Case T-26/15 P)

(2015/C 118/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov, European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12 Hristov v Commission and EMA, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12 Hristov v Commission and EMA,

Hristov

Commission and EMA

| — | refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, for a ruling on the other pleas in support of the appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, for a ruling on the other pleas in support of the appeal,

| — | reserve the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law:

| — | the Civil Service Tribunal infringed EU law by attributing to the principle of good administration a scope which it does not have; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Civil Service Tribunal infringed EU law by attributing to the principle of good administration a scope which it does not have;

| — | in the alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of proportionality by failing to determine, before making the annulment, whether the failure to observe the principle of good administration could have affected the contents of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of proportionality by failing to determine, before making the annulment, whether the failure to observe the principle of good administration could have affected the contents of the contested decision;

| — | in the further alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal, in any event, infringed EU law by failing to balance the respective interests and failing to limit the effects of its judgments. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal, in any event, infringed EU law by failing to balance the respective interests and failing to limit the effects of its judgments.

---
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 1 0

- 5 1 0 1 2 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

M I C H A E L C

. S M A R T

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l a n t

v

.

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l e e

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s , E l P a s o

U S D C N o

. 3 : 1 0

- 0 0 1 3 2

B e f o r e K I N G

, B E N A V I D E S

, a n d E L R O D

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. .
P E R C U R I A M : *

M i c h a e l S m a r t h a s f i l e d a s e r i e s o f p r o s e l a w s u i t s a g a i n s t f e d e r a l

a g e n c i e s , o f

f i c e r s , a n d e m p l o y e e s

. T h e i n s t a n t a p p e a l i s f r o m t h e d i s m i s s a l o f h i s

c a u s e o f a c t i o n b a s e d u p o n r e s j u d i c a t a

. S m a r t a s s e r t s g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s w i t h

v e r y l i t t l e d e t a i l a n d m a k e s n o r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e r e c o r d

. I t i s c l e a r , h o w e v e r , t h a t

t h e n u c l e u s o f t h i s s u i t i s t h e s a m e a s t h e p r e v i o u s c a s e t h a t w a s d i s m i s s e d b y

a d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n o u r c i r c u i t a n d a f f i r m e d b y t h i s C o u r t o n a p p e a l

. T h e d i s t r i c t U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 3, 20 11

Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5

, the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion s hould not *
be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-51012 Document: 00511400201 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2011N o

. 1 0

- 5 1 0 1 2

c o u r t c o r r e c t l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t r e s j u d i c a t a a p p l i e d a n d d i s m i s s e d t h e c l a i m

h e r e i n

. T h i s a p p e a l i s D I S M I S S E D a s f r i v o l o u s

.

2 Case: 10-51012 Document: 00511400201 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2011
Kern L. Prescott 

3 Goldeneye Drive

Topsham, ME 04086

Residence: (207) 319-7589

Cell Phone: (207) 841-1 181

State House E-Mail:

RepKerri .Prescottlegislature.maine.gov

E-Mail: prescottstaterep@yahoo.com

july 13, 2011 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

Department of Transportation 

1200 NewJcrsey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

2 STATE HOUSE STATION

AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0002 

(207) 287-1400 

TTY: (207) 287-4469 

Dear Secretary LaHood and AdmimstratorJackson: 

I understand the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be 

reviewing the already rigorous fuel economy standards that will be in effect from 2012 to 2016 to determine if they need to be 

increased beginning in 2017. 

As House Chair of the Maine Legislature's Joint Standing Committee on Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development, 

I would like to take this opportunity to share with you my concerns about issuing even tougher fuel economy requirements. 

Every day my colleagues and I hear about the issues facing Maine people. The majority center around the economy, with many 

focused on the high cost of energy, food and transportation - elements essential to raising families and building businesses. 

In Maine, with very few exceptions, every family relies on cars and trucks to get where they need to go. Industries across our state 

from shipbuilding and papermaking to farming and fishing to tourism and the service sector depend on motor vehicles to meet 

obligations to their customers. 

I believe the last thing we should do is add on regulations that will make it even more expensive for Maine people to feed their 

families, own a vehicle or create new jobs. We need transportation that is safe, reliable and affordable. Otherwise, we are putting 

our families, jobs and businesses at risk. 

I ask that NHTSA and EPA give every consideration to establishing a single, national fuel economy standard that takes into 

account the potential economic impacts that more stringent standards would bring to so many hardworking Maine people. 

I appreciate your taking the time to review my concerns and look forward to following your actions on this important issue. 

ern L. Prescott

State Representative 

cc: Honorable Olympia J. Snowe 

Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Honorable Michael H. Michaud 

Honorable Chellie Pingree

Printed on recycled paper
March 22, 1948

No. 52232.

Suit 4561.

#### Hing Wah Tai & Co. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1022 affirmed January 27, 1948. C. A. D. 379.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3924 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3924

 To establish limitations on advanced payments for bus rolling stock, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2024

  Ms. Smith (for herself, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Fetterman, and Mrs. Britt) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
            Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish limitations on advanced payments for bus rolling stock, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bus Rolling Stock Modernization Act 
of 2024''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON ADVANCED PAYMENTS FOR BUS ROLLING STOCK.

    Section 5323 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(w) Limitations on Advanced Payments for Bus Rolling Stock.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
        chapter or part 200 of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations, or 
        any successor regulation, a recipient may use assistance made 
        available under this chapter to make an advance payment on a 
        bus rolling stock vehicle without the recipient obtaining pre-
        approval or requiring a performance bond or other form of 
        security from the transit vehicle manufacturer.
            ``(2) Limitations.-- A recipient making an advance payment 
        under paragraph (1)--
                    ``(A) shall have--
                            ``(i) a signed purchase order and executed 
                        contract with a transit vehicle manufacturer 
                        that includes advance payment provisions;
                            ``(ii) preaward authority; and
                            ``(iii) met the requirements under 
                        subsection (m) and section 5318(e) of this 
                        title; and
                    ``(B) shall not provide an advanced payment that is 
                more than 20 percent of the total purchase order 
                value.''.
                                 <all>
```