alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007210EN.01001201.xml

| 8.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4868 — Avnet/Magirus EID)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 210/08)

| 1. | On 31 August 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Avnet Inc. (‘Avnet’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of parts of the undertaking Magirus Group (Germany), namely its infrastructure division (‘Magirus EID’) by way of purchase of assets. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 31 August 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Avnet Inc. (‘Avnet’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of parts of the undertaking Magirus Group (Germany), namely its infrastructure division (‘Magirus EID’) by way of purchase of assets.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Avnet: distributor of electronic components, computer products and technology services, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Avnet: distributor of electronic components, computer products and technology services,

| — | for Magirus EID: distribution of IT products. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Magirus EID: distribution of IT products.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4868 — Avnet/Magirus EID, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4868 — Avnet/Magirus EID, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8671 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish the Intelligence 

Rotational Assignment Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2024 

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

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish 

the Intelligence Rotational Assignment Program, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘DHS Intelligence Ro5 tational Assignment Program and Law Enforcement Sup6 port Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8671 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY INTEL2 LIGENCE ROTATIONAL ASSIGNMENT PRO3 GRAM. 

4 Section 844 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

5 (6 U.S.C. 414) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(b) INTELLIGENCE ROTATIONAL ASSIGNMENT PRO8 GRAM.— 

9 ‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than one 

10 year after the date of the enactment of this sub11 section, the Secretary shall establish an Intelligence 

12 Rotational Assignment Program as part of the Rota13 tion Program under subsection (a). 

14 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBILITY.—The Intelligence Rotational 

15 Assignment Program shall be open to analysts serv16 ing in analyst positions in an intelligence component 

17 of the Department, in the Office of Strategic Intel18 ligence and Information of the United States Secret 

19 Service, or in other positions in the Department, as 

20 determined by the Secretary. 

21 ‘‘(3) COORDINATION.—The responsibilities 

22 specified in subsection (a)(3)(B) that apply to the 

23 Rotation Program under such subsection shall, as 

24 applicable, apply to the Intelligence Rotational As25 signment Program under this subsection.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32

Via
EDGAR
Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of TEL Offshore Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.

|                |  | JPMorgan Chase Bank,
Corporate Trustee for TEL Offshore Trust
|--------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|August 13, 2004 |  | By:                                                          

---
Operators Manual

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf

Safety Guidelines

http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Safety_Guidelines_Disclaimer_en.pdf

Battery Guidelines

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf
# C_2007170EN.01002202.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2007 — Grether v OHIM — Crisgo (FENNEL)

(Case T-167/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark FENNEL - Earlier Community word mark FENJAL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b), Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2007/C 170/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grether AG (Binningen, Switzerland) (represented by: initially, V. von Bomhard, A. Pohlmann and A. Renck, and subsequently, V. von Bomhard, A. Pohlmann and T. Dolde, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Crisgo (Thailand) Co. Ltd (Samutsakom, Thailand) (represented by: A. Bensoussan, M. Haas and L. Tellier-Loniewski, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2004 (Case R 250/2002-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Grether AG and Crisgo (Thailand) Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.

1

---
EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of China Xiniya Fashion Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officers
knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 3, 2012



/s/ Chee Jiong NgName:    Chee Jiong NgTitle:      Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

MUMIN ISRAFIL,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

vs.

 CASE NO. C2-11-385

ROB JEFFREYS, et al., JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE TERENCE P. KEMP

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed February 7, 2013, JUDGMENT is hereby

entered DISMISSING this case.

Date: February 7, 2013 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00385-EAS-TPK Doc #: 61 Filed: 02/07/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 48012.

#### Protests 888871-G, etc., of Eurasia Import Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the items consist of hats the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 47291 the protests were sustained to that extent.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, David R. Bradley, Chief Executive Officer of United National Group,
Ltd. (the Company), hereby 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
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March
31, 2004 (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: May 14, 2004/s/ David R. BradleyName: David R. BradleyTitle: Chief Executive Officer
#### John B. Leverich, Resp’t, *v.*Weeks W. Culver *et al.,*App’lts.

*Edward Cromwell,*for resp’t; *8. Jones,*for app’lts.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Affirming 8 N. Y. State Rep., 390.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 3

- 1067

_____________________________
L ONNIE B R AMEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the C ircuit Court for Bay County

. Timothy Register , Judge

. April 16, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , B ILBREY , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Dixon, Assistant Public Defender , Tallahassee
, for Appellant ; Lonnie B

. Ramey,
pro se

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appell ee

.
Before the Second Division,

April 5, 1944

No. 49315.

#### Protest 108256-K of Armand Schwab & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It is claimed that the articles in question consist of hemp hats, not blocked or trimmed, and not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, and that they are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218). It was found that the record sustained the plaintiff’s contention. The protest was therefore sustained to that extent.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2010

p1018 

# Order

October 26, 2010

141353 & (67)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141353 COA: 281567 Wayne CC: 07-008327-02-FC DELEON SINCLAIRE NELSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for peremptory reversal or remand is DENIED.
124 STAT. 3590 PUBLIC LAW 111–338—DEC. 22, 2010 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3794: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 14, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–338 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To amend chapter 5 of title 40, United States Code, to include organizations whose 

membership comprises substantially veterans as recipient organizations for the 

donation of Federal surplus personal property through State agencies. 

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 ‘‘Formerly Owned Resources 

for Veterans to Express Thanks for Service Act of 2010’’ or ‘‘FOR 

VETS Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 2. RECIPIENTS OF CERTAIN FEDERAL SURPLUS PERSONAL PROPERTY. 

Section 549(c)(3)(B) of title 40, United States Code, is 

amended— 

(1) in clause (viii), by striking ‘‘or’’ after the semicolon; 

(2) in clause (ix), by striking the period and inserting 

‘‘; or’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(x) an organization whose—’’ 

‘‘(I) membership comprises substantially veterans (as defined under section 101 of title 38); 

and 

‘‘(II) representatives are recognized by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under section 5902 of 

title 38.’’. 

Approved December 22, 2010. 

Formerly Owned 

Resources for 

Veterans to 

Express Thanks 

for Service 

Act of 2010. 

40 USC 101 note. 

Dec. 22, 2010 

[S. 3794] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
~tate of ~outb <t1atolina 

<l&ffice of tbe ~obernor MARK SANFORD POST OFFICE Box 12267 

GOVERNOR COLUMBIA 29211 

December 9,2010 

Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming 

Regional Administrator 

United States Environmental Prbtection, Agency, Region 4 

Sam Nunn Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 

Re: South Carolina Boundary Recommendations for Lead Designations 

Dear Ms. Fleming, 

I am writing this letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update 

South Carolina's original recommendation on air quality designations for the revised National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead. On October 15, 2008, the EPA substantially 

revised the NAAQS for lead (73 Federal Register 66964, November 12, 2008). In conjunction 

with strengthening the lead NAAQS, the EPA established new criteria for siting ambient lead 

monitors, finding the pre-existing ambient lead monitoring network inadequate for determining 

attainment status. Monitors meeting the new network siting requirements were to begin operation 

in January 2010. 

As a result, in its letter dated June 14, 2010, the EPA stated that it intends to complete the lead 

designations in two rounds. The EPA identified South Carolina as a state included in this second 

round of designations and permitted the state to submit an updated recommendation by 

December 15,2010. 

After a review of the most recent quality-assured air quality data, I am again pleased to report 

that South Carolina fully complies with the primary and secondary NAAQS for lead. As a result, 

I am again recommending that the entire State of South Carolina be designated as "attainment" 

for the lead NAAQS based upon validated air quality monitoring data. 
Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming 

Page Two 

December 9, 2010 

Should you have any questions regarding our recommendation, please contact Myra Reece, 

Chief, Bureau of Air Quality, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 

at (803) 898-4123 or by email atreecemc@dhec.sc.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Mark Sanford 

MS/cp 

cc:	 Mr. Earl Hunter, COmIhissioner, SCDHEC 

Mr. Robert W. King, Jr., SCDHEC 

Ms. Myra C. Reece, SCDHEC
October 21, 2015

Mr. Tracy Scott Compton

1136 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94103

Dear Mr. Compton :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your July 21, 2015 exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3053 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole

.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlin es in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01954**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 01954\01954_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01954\01954_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01954\01954_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01954\01954_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01954\01954_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01954\01954_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01954\Certification Statement Plant ID 01954.PDF Plant certification statement x 

### 01954\Supplemental Documents\01954_A5-2 Clear Springs Ranch and Front Range Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01954\Supplemental Documents\01954_Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION


I, Mark Glusing, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of 649.COM INC.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statement, and other financial
     information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 the annual report is
          being prepared;

     (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     (c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
     equivalent function):

     (a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weakness in
          internal controls; and

     (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


/s/ Mark Glusing                         Date: March 30, 2004
--------------------------------
Mark Glusing
President / Director


<PAGE>