alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007199EN.01003403.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — AEPI v Commission

(Case T-229/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Copyright and related rights - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Obligations relating to investigation of complaints - Absence of Community interest - Rejection)

(2007/C 199/65)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: T. Asprogerakas-Grivas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Christoforou and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2005) D/201832 of 18 April 2005 rejecting a complaint concerning alleged infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Greek organisations for collective management of rights related to copyright in music.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | orders AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.

1

---
No. 41917.

#### Protest 201007-G of Salem Shawiry (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Prom the evidence it was found that certain items consist of laces, embroidered. The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
From: "Higgins, Cortney" < Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov >

To: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/14/2012 05:09 PM

Subject: RE: EO 12866 review

- NESHAP Portland Cement Interagency Review response

HI Sharon,

This seems like a new requirement

– can we have a conversation tomorrow (I’m free from 10

- 2 and 3

- 5)

to talk about the insert on page 47 :

In addition, to stay in complia nce, sources would be required to operate at average levels of .02 to .03

lb/ton clinker, which equates to 3 to 5 mg/dscm.

Thanks,

Cortney

From: Sharon Nizich [ mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epamail.epa.gov ]

Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:02 AM

To: Higgins, Cortney

Cc: Tom Walton; Amy Lamson; Steven Silverman; Laney, Michael N.; Keith Barnett;

Charlotte Bertrand; Beth Wittig; Wendy Blake

Subject: EO 12866 review

- NESHAP Portland Cement Interagency R eview response

Hello Cortney

Please find attached revisions to subject package. Sending you the redline version so you can track your

comments. Note we have added additional discussion on 1) soliciting comments on SS work practices

(page 91), and 2) oxyge n correction factors for raw material dryers (page 119).

(See attached file: EO12866_NESHAP FOR Portland Cement S 2060 AQ93 06112012_version

_w_OMB_comments_MASTER Jun 14 2012 1100 am.docx)

Sharon V. Nizich

Minerals and Manufacturing Group (MMG)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS

- US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541

- 2825
# C_2007286EN.01006201.xml

| 28.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/62

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/115/07

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2007/C 286/06)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

| | EPSO/AD/115/07 — Irish-language lawyer-linguists (AD7). |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/115/07 — Irish-language lawyer-linguists (AD7).

EPSO/AD/115/07 — Irish-language lawyer-linguists (AD7).

The competition notice is published in English and Irish only, in Official Journal C 286 A of 28 November 2007.

Full details are available on the EPSO website at: http://europa.eu/epso

---
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arsanis, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, René Russo, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of her knowledge on the date hereof:

(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 Company.

 

| Date: March 9, 2018 | /s/ René Russo                                                                   |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                | René Russo

President and Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer) |
#### Bertha Koehler, Executrix, Resp’t, *v.*Samuel D. Sewards, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,*

*Filed January 24, 1890.)*

Examination before trial—Affidavit for.

An order for the examination of a defendant before trial to obtain facts to insert in the complaint will not be granted upon an affidavit made by plaintiff’s attorney upon information and belief alone, especially where it appears that plaintiff has, in another action, admitted knowledge of the facts sought to he obtained.

Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order requiring the defendant to appear and be examined before trial.

*Emanuel I.*Myers, for resp’t; *Wales F.*Severance, for app’lt.

Daniels, J.

The object for which the examination of the defendant has been directed to be taken is to obtain facts to insert in the. complaint to present a cause of action. The claim is made that on loans of money made at different times by the defendant to the testator usurious rates of interest were exacted and paid. And it is proposed to examine the defendant to obtain an account of such loans, and the interest reserved and received. But a fundamental difficulty appears in the way of sustaining the order. And that is that the affidavit has been made by the attorney, and its *365important statements rest upon information and belief alone-Such an affidavit has been so often held to be insufficient for an order of this nature as almost to render it needless to cite authorities to sustain the position. It was distinctly so held in *Barnard*v. *Kobbe,*54 N. Y., 516, 520-521, and in *Steuben County Bank*v. Alberger, 78 id., 252. Beyond that, the answer of the plaintiff herself in the suit of Wortmann against herself indicates the fact to be that she is possessed of ample information concerning the loans so as to be able to frame her complaint without the examination of the defendant. •

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and also the disbursements.

Yan Brunt, P. J., and Brady, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8931 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8931

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To redesignate Saratoga National Historical Park as Saratoga National 
                           Battlefield Park.

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

SECTION 1. SARATOGA NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK.

    (a) Redesignation.--Saratoga National Historical Park shall 
hereafter be known and designated as ``Saratoga National Battlefield 
Park''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to Saratoga National 
Historical Park shall be deemed to be a reference to Saratoga National 
Battlefield Park.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 17, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 8931

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To redesignate Saratoga National Historical Park as Saratoga National 
                           Battlefield Park.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-299

Adolfo Revilla-Gonzalez 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 21) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: January 19, 2012 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00299-JLG Doc #: 23 Filed: 01/19/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:10-cv-00116-MHW-EPD Doc #: 45 Filed: 01/10/12 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00116-MHW-EPD Doc #: 45 Filed: 01/10/12 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T16:46:56-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP06-200-022] 

      ( print page 18230)    
Take notice that on March 30, 2007, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (REX) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective April 1, 2007: 

Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 22, 

Second Revised Sheet No. 22A, 

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 24, 

First Revised Sheet No. 24A. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7-6800 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 10.3

Approval of Wuhan Bureau of Commerce on Issues Concerning Mergers & Acquisitions
of Wuhan Wufeng  Machinery  Manufacturing  Co.,  Ltd. by Foreign  Investors  and
Establishing Enterprises with Foreign Investment

TO: Wuhan Wufeng Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

According  to  Law  of  the  People's  Republic  of  China  on   Foreign-Capital
Enterprises & Provisions for Foreign Investors to Merge Domestic Enterprises and
the other related laws and  regulations,  your  application for Establishing the
Enterprise  with Foreign  Investment by Merger & Acquisition has been passed and
approved. The details of approval are as follows:

1.   To permit International  Building  Technologies Group, Inc. to purchase 88%
     of the common  stock shares of Wuhan Wufeng  Machinery  Manufacturing  Co.,
     Ltd.,  which is 100% wholly owned by Wuhan  Intepower  Co., Ltd. at a fixed
     price of RMB 11,000,000.00.  The compensation of M&A is required to be paid
     within 3 months from the issuing date of Business License.

2.   To permit your company to become a Joint Venture enterprise

     (1). Name: Wuhan Wufeng Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
     (2). Address: 306 Lu Mo Road, Guan Shan Street, Hong Shan District, Wuhan.
     (3). Type of Business: Sino-Foreign Joint Venture Enterprise
     (4). Investor:  International Building Technologies Group, Inc. (the "first
          party" hereafter);
          Wuhan Intepower Co., Ltd. (the "second party" hereafter)
     (5). Total Investment : RMB 26,420,000.00
          Registered Capital: RMB 26,420,000.00
     (6). Capital  Contribution:  the  first  party  pays the  amount  of 88% of
          registered  capital in US dollar;  the second party pays the amount of
          12% of registered capital in RMB.
     (7). Business  Scope:   Mechanical  Products,   Machinery,   the  research,
          manufacturing  and sale for the energy saving products and their spare
          parts.
     (8). Duration  of  Operation:  30 years from the  issuing  date of Business
          License.
     (9). Approval of the attachment: list of directors

After receiving this approval and having got Certificate of Approval,  the other
applications to the government  administrations,  such as Bureau of Industrial &
Commerce,  Taxation,  Customs and the  administration  of Foreign  Exchange  are
required  within 30 days. The investment  should be preceded on schedule and the
operation should be complied with the laws and regulations.

Wuhan City Bureau of Commerce
June 24, 2008
A89A2106.

#### COOK v. THE STATE.

(392 SE2d 556)

Beasley, Judge.

Defendant appeals his cocaine possession conviction, OCGA § 16-13-30.

1. Appointed counsel for defendant has filed an enumeration of error raising the general grounds only. See *Lewis v. State,*186 Ga. App. 92 (1) (366 SE2d 305) (1988),

A Brunswick police officer testified that on October 23, 1987, he stopped a car driven by defendant in which Sam Armstrong was a passenger. The officer saw the driver’s side door open about six inches and an object drop on the ground beside the car. He opened the door, grabbed defendant and spied a matchbox “laying down there just below the door.” The box contained cream-colored rocks which were subsequently identified as cocaine. The officer also found a razor *70blade with the cream-colored substance on it located on the hump between the driver’s seat and that of the passenger. There was also a plastic container with a small residue at the same place.

Decided March 7, 1990

Rehearing denied March 23, 1990.

Gary B. Cook, *pro se.*

*Glenn Thomas, Jr., District Attorney,*for appellee.

Armstrong, under a grant of immunity, testified he was in the car with defendant on October 23; defendant had cocaine in his possession; he knew defendant had cocaine in a matchbox because he was with defendant when he bought it; the matchbox identified by the police officer was the one defendant had in his pocket. Armstrong admitted using cocaine, and in answer to the question “did you have any type of business arrangement with [defendant]?” stated that “we was partners.” When asked what type of partners, he responded: “The dope game.” Defendant objected to this and moved for mistrial which, after a hearing out of the presence of the jury, was denied. Armstrong also testified that defendant opened the door and threw the matchbox with “the dope” out of the car when they were stopped.

The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *Lewis v. State,*186 Ga. App. 349, 350 (1) (367 SE2d 123) (1988); *Howard v. State,*185 Ga. App. 215 (1) (363 SE2d 621) (1987).

2. Defendant also filed a pro se enumeration of errors and brief, after the first were filed. We have held that under our State Constitution defendant has no right to simultaneous representation by counsel and self-representation. *Smith v. State,*194 Ga. App. 327 (390 SE2d 304) (1990); *Cargill v. State,*255 Ga. 616, 622 (3) (340 SE2d 891) (1986). Thus, we do not consider those errors raised by defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carley, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.*
Case No. 15,176.

#### UNITED STATES v. FULLERTON.

[7 Blatchf. 177.]1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

March 16, 1870.

Criminal Law—Instructions to Acquit. •

On the trial of an indictment for a misdemeanor. after testimony had been given on both sides, and the evidence was closed, the court directed the jury co acquit the defendant, on the ground that the evidence did not warrant a conviction.

[Cited in IT. S. v. Anthony, Case No. 14.4.59; U. S. v. Babcock, Id. 14,487.]

In this case, which was an indictment for a misdemeanor, after testimony had been given, at the trial, on the part of both the prosecution and the defence, and the evidence was closed, the counsel for the defendant requested the court to instruct the jury to acquit the defendant [William Fullerton], the ground of the request being that the evidence was such as not to warrant a conviction.

Edwards Pierrepont, Dist. Atty.. and Benjamin F. Tracy, for United States.

Edwin W. Stoughton, John K. Porter, John E. Burrill, Grenville T. Jenks, and Clarence A. Seward, for defendant.

*1226Before WOODRUFF, Circuit Judge, and BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

1

 [Reported by Hon. Samuel Blatehford, District Judge, and here reprinted by permission.]

THE COURT,

after hearing a discussion by the respective counsel as to the power of the court to give such an instruction in any case, and thus take the case from the jury, held that, inasmuch as the court would have the power, if the defendant were convicted by the jury on the evidence, to grant him a new trial, if it should be of opinion that the verdict was against the evidence, it had the power, if it was of opinion that a verdict of guilty would not be warranted by the evidence, to direct the jury to acquit the defendant on that ground. The court, being of opinion that the evidence did not warrant a con-vietio'u, directed the jury to acquit the defendant, which was done.
# C_2007269EN.01004602.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/46

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2007 — Imagination Technologies v OHIM (PURE DIGITAL)

(Case T-461/04) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark PURE DIGITAL - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94)

(2007/C 269/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Imagination Technologies (Kings Langley, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and P. Brownlow and N. Jenkins, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Schennen initially and subsequently by D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2004 (Case R 108/2004-2), concerning an application for the registration of the word mark PURE DIGITAL as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

Dismisses the action

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

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

1

---