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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned SEP. 

*Time and Date:*                         12 p.m.-4 p.m., May 10, 2007 (Closed).                     

*Place:*                         Teleconference.                     

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                     

*Matters To Be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of scientific merit of applications for “Epidemiological Studies of Epilepsy,” PEP 2007-R-05.                     

*For Further Information Contact:*                         Juliana Cyril, M.P.H., Ph.D., Associate Director for Policy and Peer Review, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D-72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone (404) 639-3098.                     

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                     

Dated: April 2, 2007. 

Elaine L. Baker, 

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

 [FR Doc. E7-6589 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
No. 47493.

#### Protests 832088-G, etc., of T. D. Downing Co. et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the balloons in question are trimmed with colored feathers fastened to one end of a hollow cane or stick composed in part of bamboo, and that they are the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 40493. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was therefore sustained.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 22-1465

BARBARA MICHEL; KARINE G. PIERRE BOUCICAUT; ANA MARISELA 

DIAZ SANCHEZ; JOSE ANGEL ANDRADE; FREDY FRANCISCO FUENTES; 

OSCAR OSMIN CHAVEZ-DERAS,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of 

Homeland Security; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; 

MICHAEL J. MCCLEARY, in his official capacity as Field Director 

of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court, issued on May 11, 2023, is 

amended as follows:

On page 10, line 1, replace "of" with "or"
# C_2007177EN.01001201.xml

| 31.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4766 — Flextronics/Solectron)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 177/08)

| 1. | On 23 July 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), by which Flextronics International Ltd (‘Flextronics’, Singapore), acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation, sole control Solectron Corporation (‘Solectron’, USA) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 23 July 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), by which Flextronics International Ltd (‘Flextronics’, Singapore), acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation, sole control Solectron Corporation (‘Solectron’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.

1

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






  — | for Flextronics: electronics manufacturing services, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Flextronics: electronics manufacturing services,

| — | for Solectron: electronics manufacturing services. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Solectron: electronics manufacturing services.

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

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration could fall within the scope of Regulation (EEC) 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.4766 — Flextronics/Solectron 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.4766 — Flextronics/Solectron 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

---
(Reap. Dec. 9735)

#### J. Ossola Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 831178; 779929; 814957.

(Decided July 7, 1960)

*John B. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*George Ooohran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mot.t.tkqn, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeals for reappraisement upon stipulation upon *422tlie basis of which I find export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be tire proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware, fishing sets, etc., involved, and that such value in each case was the invoice unit value, plus all the charges stated in the invoices, except the buying commission.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
# C_2007199EN.01003302.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2007 — Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission

(Case T-475/04) (1)

1

(State Aid - Mobile telephony - Alteration of the fees payable by Orange and SFR for the UMTS licences - Decision finding no State aid)

(2007/C 199/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bouygues and Bouygues Tèlécom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: L. Vogel, J. Vogel, B. Amory, A. Verheyden, F. Sureau and D. Théophile, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.L. Buendia Sierra and C. Giolito, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet, Agents); Société française de radiotéléphone — SFR (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Vadja QC and A. Vincent, lawyer; and Orange France SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville and S. Hautbourg, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of the Commision's decision of 20 July 2004 (State aid NN 42/2004 — France) concerning alteration of the fees payable by Orange and SFR for the UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunication System) licences.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom SA jointly and severally to pay their own costs, those of the Commission and those of Orange France SA and Société française de radiotéléphone — SFR |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom SA jointly and severally to pay their own costs, those of the Commission and those of Orange France SA and Société française de radiotéléphone — SFR

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69 of 19.3.2005.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                                                                February 1, 2000



Mr. Randy Ruhlman
Ruhlman Motor Sports
2530 Brandt Forest Court
Greensboro, NC  27455


Dear Randy:

We are pleased to have the opportunity to be associated with Ruhlman Motorsports
for the 2000 race season. The move to the Oldsmobile Aurora is very exciting and
should contribute to an enhanced visibility this year.

Regarding our 2000 sponsorship fee, PLP(R) agrees to pay Ruhlman Motorsports
$658,000 this season. Enclosed is a check for $300,000. The payment schedule for
the remainder of the fee is as follows:

<TABLE>
<S>                                       <C>
                        March 2000        $179,000
                        April 2000        $179,000
</TABLE>

As in the past, PLP agrees to pay for crash damage not to exceed $25,000 this
season. "Fender bender" type accidents or maintenance items will not qualify for
crash damage reimbursement.

Currently, we are committed to customer related activities at the Long Beach and
Cleveland events. Other events are still being considered. The Concord event
will be open to many PLP employees from the Albemarle plant, and SMP may be
interested as well. At this point, we do not plan to sponsor a chalet.

We are re-evaluating our requirements for shirts, etc., and, therefore, need to
review this area with you or Cristi before vendor commitments are in place.

Randy, we anticipate an exciting and successful 2000 season. We look forward to
building stronger customer relationships in the coming months through our unique
association with Ruhlman Motorsports. Please call me if there should be any
questions.

                                                      Regards,

                                                      /s/ Jon Barnes
                                                      ----------------------
RJB:jkj                                                     Jon Barnes

cc:   J. R. Ruhlman, R. G. Ruhlman
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

SCUNGIO BORST & ASSOCIATES

v.

410 SHURS LANE DEVELOPERS, LLC AND KENWORTH II, LLC AND ROBERT DEBOLT

PETITION OF: SCUNGIO BORST & ASSOCIATES : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 30 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM
AND NOW , this 28th day of July, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED . The issue as set forth by Petitioner is: Did the lower court commit an error of law or abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment to [Robert] DeBolt under [the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (“CASPA”), 73 P.S. §§ 501 et seq .], where: (a) CASPA makes the owner [(410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLC)] and the “agent of the owner acting with the owner’s authority” (DeBolt) liable to contractors such as [Petitioner], (b) DeBolt is a fifty percent owner of [410 Shurs Lane Developers], (c) [Petitioner] consistently dealt with DeBolt and received his authorizations for change orders, (d) [Petitioner] never received payment for the change orders, and (e) [Petitioner’s] construction of CASPA is consistent with the courts’ construction of the Wage Payment and Collection Law[, 43 P.S. §§ 260.1 et seq .]?
NUMBER 13-21-00229-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.A., A CHILD

On appeal from the 430th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s third motion for extension to file 

appellant’s brief. Appellant requests a five-day extension from the current due date of

October 12, 2021.

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant’s motion is of the 

opinion that the motion should be granted. The Court, however, requires strict adherence 

to the briefing rules in appeals of parental termination cases, such as this appeal, and 

looks with disfavor upon the delay caused by such extension requests. See TEX. R. APP.
2

P. 38.6; see also id. at R. 28.4.

It is therefore ordered that the Honorable Victoria Guerra, counsel for appellant, 

file the appellate brief with this Court by October 18, 2021. No further motions for 

extension will be granted.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

14th day of October, 2021.
Exhibit 31.2 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I,Stephen A. Aanderud, Chief Financial Officer of DayStar Technologies, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of DayStar Technologies, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2005; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined 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 oursupervision, 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 theregistrant’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 inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying 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 functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2005
EXHIBIT 31.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Dale Paisley, certify that:





1.        I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Healthmed Services Ltd.;





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 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.








By:
/s/ Dale PaisleyDate: December 20, 2010

Dale PaisleyPrincipal Accounting Officer
Exhibit 99.9  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  We consent to the reference to our Firm under the captions Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm and Principal Accountant Fees and Services and to the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of our reports dated March 31, 2014, with respect to the statements of financial position of the Trust as at December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the statements of comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2013, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Sprott Physical Silver Trust as at December 31, 2013.   /s/ Ernst & Young LLPToronto,   Canada
Chartered   AccountantsMarch 31,   2014
Licensed   Public Accountants
No. 47484.

#### Protest 33365-K of Ciba Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel 41 percent of Albatex POC pat., and 53 percent of Sapamine KWC pat., were held taxable at 3 cents per pound under section 701, Revenue Act of 1936, as claimed.
# C_2007170EN.01001802.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat — Belgium) — Clear Channel Belgium S.A. v City of Liège

(Case C-378/06) (1)

1

(2007/C 170/33)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 8321)

#### United States *v.*Wilkinson *&*Gross, Inc.

Entry Nos. 815703; 824396.

(Decided July 8, 1954)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the cost of manufacturing and producing merchandise such as or similar to the particular merchandise involved in the above reappraisement cases, at a time preceding the date of exportation which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production of merchandise such as or similar to the particular *511merchandise under consideration in the usual course of business is the unit invoiced prices, plus packing as invoiced.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption nor for export to the United States nor was such merchandise freely offered for sale packed ready for delivery in the principal market of the United States at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER AGREED that these cases may be submitted for decision upon the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the unit invoiced prices, plus packing as invoiced.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.