alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 40333.

#### Protests 565465-G, etc., of Globe Import Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of boxes, calendars, trays, photo frames, and pen stands chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445), *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816), *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 47857). and Abstract 37730 cited.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Fort Sage Off-Highway VehicleArea guide**
 
Brochure | Map
 
SuDoc:I 53.7/2:F 77 S
Item Number:0633
CGP systemNumber: 000804205
 
December 11, 2017
----

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system

(2006/C 68/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

NOTE:

More information about harmonised standards on the Internet at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/

----

(1)  ESO: European Standardisation Organisation:

(2)OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

(3)OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

----
PUBLIC LAW 113–69—DEC. 26, 2013 127 STAT. 1207 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 767: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–55 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 159 (2013): 

May 15, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–69 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to modify the Pilot Project offices of 

the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PILOT PROJECT OFFICES OF FEDERAL PERMIT STREAMLINING PILOT PROJECT. 

Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15924) 

is amended by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(d) PILOT PROJECT OFFICES.—The following Bureau of Land 

Management Offices shall serve as the Pilot Project offices: 

‘‘(1) Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming. 

‘‘(2) High Plains District Office, Wyoming. 

‘‘(3) Montana/Dakotas State Office, Montana. 

‘‘(4) Farmington Field Office, New Mexico. 

‘‘(5) Carlsbad Field Office, New Mexico. 

‘‘(6) Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colorado. 

‘‘(7) Vernal Field Office, Utah.’’. 

Approved December 26, 2013. 

State listing. 

Dec. 26, 2013 

[H.R. 767] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
No. 54218.

#### Crosse & Blackwell Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 151942-K, etc. (Baltimore, Cleveland, and New Orleans).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
July 26, 2013

Mr. Bradford A. Docos

9603 Savannah Crossing Court

Vienna, VA 22182

Dear Mr. Docos:

This is in response to your letter, dated June 6, 2013 (public docket No. FAA-2013-0559)

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 91.109(a)

and (b)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, 

would allow you to conduct certain flight instruction and simulated instrument flights to meet 

recent instrument experience requirements in certain Beechcraft airplanes equipped with a 

functioning throwover control wheel in place of functioning dual controls.

On August 19, 2011, the FAA issued a revision to14 CFR § 91.109 as part of it “Pilots in 

Command Proficiency Check and Other Changes to the Pilot and Pilot School Certification 

Rules” final rule (76 FR 54095; August 31, 2011), which became effective October 31, 2011. 

A copy of the rule is enclosed.

Since the relief you requested is permitted in the revised § 91.109, an exemption is no longer 

required. Therefore we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
No. 41934.

#### Protest 472142-G of Salem Shawiry (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record if»1 was found that certain items consist of embroidered laces. On the authority of *Amrein*v. *United States*(T. D. 49551) the claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was sustained.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRUCE MCEACHERN,

Appellant,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D18-2064 and 4D18-3243

[September 10, 2020]

Consolidated nonfinal appeals from the Circuit Court for the 

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; 

L.T. Case Nos. CACE 10-08803.

Claire Cubbin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Jason F. Joseph and Andrea Tromberg of Tromberg Law Group, Boca 

Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

BENJAMIN HENDRICKS, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:12-cv-613 

 JUDGE SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Deavers 

PHARMACIA CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On June 4, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss be GRANTED. (Docs. 

24 and 26). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation. 

This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff Hendricks’ Objections to the Report and 

Recommendation as to the Pfizer Defendants (Doc. 51) and the Mylan Defendants (Doc. 52). 

The Defendants have responded and the Objections are now ripe for review. The Court will 

consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

 Plaintiffs’ Objections present the same issues presented to and considered by the 

Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. Specifically, with respect to the Pfizer 

Defendants, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff cannot state a claim against 

Pfizer under the Ohio Product Liability Act because he did not take a product made, sold, or 

distributed by the Pfizer Defendants. (Report and Recommendation at 10). Further, the Sixth 

Circuit recently addressed this issue in In re Darvocet, Darvon, & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00613-GCS-EPD Doc #: 56 Filed: 10/02/14 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

Litig., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12111 (6th Cir. June 27, 2014), holding that under Ohio law, a 

plaintiff cannot hold a brand-name drug manufacturer liable for harm allegedly caused by its 

competitor’s generic product. Finally, Plaintiff’s reliance on Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 

(2009), is misplaced because it provides no support for the “innovator liability” issue presented 

in this case. 

 With respect to the Mylan Defendants, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that as a 

generic drug manufacturer, Mylan had a duty of “sameness.” Accordingly, Mylan cannot be 

held liable for failing to change their warning label to include a risk of Stevens-Johnson 

Syndrome, when it was the same as the brand-name label. 

 For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s 

Objections with respect to each group of Defendants are without merit and are hereby 

OVERRULED. 

The Report and Recommendation, Document 47, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED and final judgment shall be entered in 

favor of Defendants. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 24, 26, and 47 from the Court’s pending motions list. 

The Clerk shall terminate this case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:12-cv-00613-GCS-EPD Doc #: 56 Filed: 10/02/14 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 263 

Commending the efforts of the Department of Veterans Affairs in responding 

to Hurricane Katrina. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 3, 2005 

Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. AKAKA) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commending the efforts of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs in responding to Hurricane Katrina. 

Whereas Hurricane Katrina physically devastated many areas 

in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana; 

Whereas the Department of Veterans Affairs operates 11 

medical centers, 18 community-based outpatient clinics, 3 

regional offices, and 8 national cemeteries in the States 

of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana; 

Whereas the Department of Veterans Affairs evacuated over 

1,000 patients, employees, and their families from facilities in the affected areas without any loss of life due to 

the evacuations; 

Whereas over 1,000 employees of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs are volunteering to assist veterans and their fami-
2 

•SRES 263 ATS

lies affected by Hurricane Katrina throughout the United 

States; 

Whereas the Department of Veterans Affairs is providing 

shelter to over 550 staff and their families who have been 

displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina; 

Whereas patients and employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Texas provided extraordinary support 

and medical assistance to veterans, staff, and families affected by Hurricane Katrina and coordinated numerous 

medical efforts as part of the overall Federal Government 

response and recovery efforts in the Gulf Region; and 

Whereas heroic actions and efforts on the part of numerous 

employees and volunteers of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs saved countless lives and provided immeasurable 

comfort to the victims of Hurricane Katrina: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate commends the employees 

2 and volunteers of the Department of Veterans Affairs, who 

3 risked life and limb to assist veterans, staff, and their re4 spective families who were affected by Hurricane Katrina. 

Æ
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

NOV 3 0 2016 

Flight Program Operations 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

Subject: Flight Program Operations (formerly known as Flight Inspection Services) 

Request for Extension of Exemption No. 5118 (Docket# FAA-2001-9128) 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Effective October 2, 2016, the FAA consolidated six legacy flight programs, including Flight 

Inspection Services (FIS), into a single FAA Flight Program under governance of the Flight Program 

Operations organization. As a result, Flight Program Operations requests an extension of 

Exemption No. 5 118, as amended, which provides Flight Program Operations with an exemption 

from Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) §§ 91.119 (b) and ( c), 91.159, 91.175 (a) 

and (b ), 91.179, 91.515 (a) ( l) and (a) (2) . The exemption perm its FAA aircraft assigned to the 

flight inspection mission to deviate from specific flight rules required by 14 CFR, Subpart B while 

conducting flight checks of air navigation facilities and instrument approach procedures. 

There have been no changes in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that 

were the basis for granting the original exemption. We feel continued operation under the provisions 

of the exemption would continue to serve the public interest. 

Additionally, we request that the exemption period be granted for a period of three years. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

~«7 

Floy A. Badsky 

Director of Operati ns 

Manager, Aircraft Operations Group
# C_2008237EN.01000402.xml

| 16.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5157 — Volkswagen/Scania)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 237/08)

On 13 June 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5157. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5157. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
No. 53164.

#### Abercrombie & Fitch Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63068-K, etc. (New York),

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 44189.

#### Protests 954321-G, etc., of J. & J. Distributing Co. et al.

Application by plaintiffs for rehearing granted.
January 26 , 2013

Exemption No. 10691

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 12

- 1 323

Mr. Joseph McCourt

Director of Aviation

Tarrant County College N W Campus/Office WATB 1202

4801 Marine Creek Parkway

Fort Worth

, TX 76179

Dear M r. McCourt :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption,

including the date it end s.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated December 4, 2012 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for

an exemption from § 65

. 75 (a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. This

exemption, if granted, would permit Tarrant County College (TCC) to allow students in its

Part 147 program to be able to take the aviation mechanic general (AMG) written test aft er

successfully completing the general c urriculum, but prior to meeting the experience requirements

of 14 CFR § 65.77.

Th e FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in

the Federal Register . T he requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in

acting on this petition would be detrimental to Tarrant County College

.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to

those presented in your petiti on. In Grant of Exemption No

. 6569 (cop y enclosed), the FAA

found that testing immediately after learning was a universally accepted instructional principle

that reinforces learning. Therefore, we allowed the petitioner to test students immediately after

successfully completing the general curriculum but before meeting the requirements of § 65.77.2

Having reviewed your reasons for re questing an exemption, I find that

—

• they do no t differ materially from those presented by the petitioners in the enclosed grants of

exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for gr anting the enclosed exemptions also apply to the

situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Tarrant County College an exemption from

14 CFR § 65

. 75 (a) to the extent necessary to :

Administer the AMG written test to students immediately following successful

completion of the general curriculum, before meeting the experience requirements of

§ 65.77.

Conditions and Limitations

Before exercising the priv ileges of this exemption, Tarrant County College must

provide its o perations h andbook to its c ertificate h olding d istrict o ffice (CHDO) and

receive approval of the o perations h andbook from the CHDO.

T his exemption terminates on December 30 , 201 5 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosu re
Exhibit  32


SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS


This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.


The undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. (the “Company”), each hereby certify as follows:


The
Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company, which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in this
annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.


Dated this
    1st day of November, 2013/s/ Nicholas S. SchorschNicholas S. SchorschChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Brian S. BlockBrian S. BlockExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Case: 2:12-cv-01140-EAS-EPD Doc #: 65 Filed: 10/08/14 Page: 1 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01140-EAS-EPD Doc #: 65 Filed: 10/08/14 Page: 2 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01140-EAS-EPD Doc #: 65 Filed: 10/08/14 Page: 3 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01140-EAS-EPD Doc #: 65 Filed: 10/08/14 Page: 4 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-01140-EAS-EPD Doc #: 65 Filed: 10/08/14 Page: 5 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2016-03-31T10:38:17-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
# Official Journal C 137A/19 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 137A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6119 April 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 137A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6119 April 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2018/C 137 A/01 | Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AST/139/16 — Assistants (AST 3) in the following fields: 1. Finance, 2. Human Resources | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2018/C 137 A/01

Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AST/139/16 — Assistants (AST 3) in the following fields: 1. Finance, 2. Human Resources

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer**


**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 NYFIX, Inc. for the
      quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), P. Howard Edelstein, as Chief
      Executive Officer of NYFIX, Inc., 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 his knowledge the Report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NYFIX, Inc.





Dated:
      August 11, 2008




By:
            /S/
                P. Howard EdelsteinP.
              Howard EdelsteinPresident
              and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
4.1


 


DESCRIPTION
OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES


REGISTERED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE


SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


 


BioSolar,
Inc. (the “Company”) has one class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


 


DESCRIPTION
OF COMMON STOCK


 


The
authorized capital stock of the Company consists of 6,000,000,000 shares of common stock at a par value of $0.0001 per share and 10,000,000
shares of preferred stock at par value of $0.0001 per share.


  


Holders
of the Company’s common stock are entitled to one vote for each share on all matters submitted to a stockholder vote. Holders of
common stock do not have cumulative voting rights. Therefore, holders of a majority of the shares of common stock voting for the election
of directors can elect all of the directors to our board of directors. Subject to the rights of our preferred stock, holders of the Company’s
common stock representing a majority of the voting power of the Company’s common stock issued, outstanding and entitled to vote,
represented in person or by proxy, are necessary to constitute a quorum at any meeting of stockholders. A vote by the holders of a majority
of the Company’s outstanding shares is required to effectuate certain fundamental corporate changes such as a liquidation, merger
or an amendment to the Company’s articles of incorporation


 


Subject
to the rights of preferred stockholders (if any), holders of the Company’s common stock are entitled to share in all dividends
that the Board of Directors, in its discretion, declares from legally available funds. In the event of a liquidation, dissolution or
winding up, each outstanding share entitles its holder to participate pro rata in all assets that remain after payment of liabilities
and after providing for each class of stock, if any, having preference over the common stock. The Company’s common stock has no
pre-emptive rights, no conversion rights, and there are no redemption provisions applicable to the Company’s common stock.
**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 connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Torotel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB forthe period ending October 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dale H. Sizemore,Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Dale H. Sizemore, Jr. |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |
| Dale H.  Sizemore, Jr.          |
| Chief  Executive Officer        |
| December 11,  2003              |

 

----