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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 51 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate, and a 

conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. REID) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the 

Senate, and a conditional adjournment of the House 

of Representatives. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns 

3 at the close of business on Thursday, September 1, or on 

4 Friday, September 2, 2005, on a motion offered pursuant 

5 to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 

6 designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on 

7 Tuesday, September 6, 2005, or until the time of any re8 assembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolu9 tion, whichever occurs first; and that when the House ad10 journs on the legislative day of Friday, September 2, 
2 

SCON 51 ATS 

1 2005, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent res2 olution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 

3 adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 

4 or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 

5 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

6 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the 

7 Speaker of the House, or their respective designees, acting 

8 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

9 Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify 

10 the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to re11 assemble at such place and time as they may designate 

12 whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall war13 rant it. 

Æ
From: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Andrew O'Hare" <aohare@cement.org>

Cc: Steven Silverman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 10/25/2010 10:37 AM

Subject: Cement Correction Notice

Dear Andy:

I made corrections to the notice language based on comments. Please check this over again.

Still working on the schedule.

Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Mail Code D243-02

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

919-541-5605

barnett.keith@epa.gov
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Union Tank Car Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth P. Fischl, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, do 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 my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In witness whereof, I have executed this certification as of the 15thday of November, 2006.



/s/ Kenneth P. FischlKenneth P. FischlPrincipal Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

D'Nanakai Carrigan-Terrell,

Plaintiff Civil Action 2:12-cv-00215

v. Judge Gregory L. Frost

Gary Mohr, et al., Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendants

ORDER

Plaintiff D'Nanakai Carrigan-Terrell, a state prisoner at the Ohio Reformatory for

Women at the time of the events alleged in the complaint, brings this action alleging

that defendants violated her constitutional rights by falsely charging her and convicting

her of assault, placing her in disciplinary control and segregation, denying her medical

treatment and forcing her to take medication. Plaintiff has not filed any objections to

Magistrate Judge Abel's March 20, 2012 Report and Recommendation recommending

that defendants Gary Mohr, Dr. Welch, Elizabeth Wright, and Capt. Putt be dismissed

from this lawsuit.

Upon de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B),

the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Defendants Gary Mohr, Dr.

Welch, Elizabeth Wright, and Capt. Putt are DISMISSED from this lawsuit. The

lawsuit will continue against defendants Warden Jennie Trim, Dr. Nalluri, Dr. Tench,

Dr. Tana, Mr. Nicastro, Nurse Maldinado, and Nurse Riter as to plaintiff’s claim that

1

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 04/26/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
they denied her due process of law by forcing her to take psychotropic medication.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

Gregory L. Frost

United States District Judge 

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 04/26/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 45183.

#### Protests 36280-K, etc., of Bel Paese Sales Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authoiity of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389) it was held that an allowance of 1 percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible coverings.
1

April 29, 2016

Memorandum of Phone Call regarding RMP Proposed Rule

Kathy Franklin, Office of Emergency Management, USEPA

Adrienne Timmel, Keller and Heckman, LLP

Ms. Timmel was confused about the schedule for the third party audits in the RMP Proposed 

Rule as cited in the proposed 40 CFR 68.79 (h) and when the third-party audits would need to 

commence.

On page 13607 of the RMP proposed rule, 40 CFR 68.79 (h) states:

(h) Schedule for conducting a third-party audit. The audit and audit report shall be 

completed, and the audit report submitting to the implementing agency pursuant to §68.80(c)(3) 

as follows, unless a different timeframe is specified by the implementing agency:

(1) Within 12 months of when any third-party audit is required pursuant to 

paragraphs (f) and/or (g) of this section; or

(2) Within three years of completion of the previous compliance audit, 

whichever is sooner.

Ms. Franklin explained that the proposed schedule for third-party audits is for when the audit and 

audit report must be completed, not commenced.

Ms. Timmel asked, as a hypothetical case, if January 2016 was the beginning of new 3-year 

cycle for the compliance audits (last audit being completed in December 2015) and an accident 

occurred in February 2016, would that mean that a third-party audit must be completed by 

January 2019 (3 years later)? Ms. Franklin said no, that the third-party audit would have to be 

completed within 12 months, or by February 2017. Having an accident triggers the third-party 

audit requirement which in this case requires an audit sooner than within 3 years. However, 

completion of this audit would resets the 3-year compliance audit cycle. 

An example is given on pages 13689 (Table 12) and 13690 of the rule explaining how a facility 

with the last compliance audit completed by April 5, 2020 and who had an accident on July 5, 

2021, would require the owner or operator to hire a third-party auditor to perform a third-party 

compliance audit and submit an audit report to the implementing agency and owner/operator 

within 12 months of the accident. 

The preamble language also explains (page 13690) that if the source’s next scheduled 

compliance audit was required sooner than one year following the incident, the third-party audit 

would be required to be completed by the scheduled compliance date unless the implementing 

agency approved an extension. Ms. Franklin gave an example where the next scheduled 

compliance date happened to be one month after the accident date. In this case, the third-party 

audit would have to be completed within one month. If the facility believes this would not be 
2

enough time to complete a third party audit, then they could request an extension for more time 

to complete the audit from their implementing agency.

Ms. Franklin said that fmore detailed examples could be provided in the final rule and/or 

guidance materials to explain the deadlines for third party audits for various situations.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:          October 30, 2009
    By:
    /s/  RONALD L. SMITHRonald L. SmithVice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer)
# C_2016191EN.01002702.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2016 — Facchinello v EUIPO — Olimpia Splendid (Synthesis)

(Case T-81/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Synthesis - Absence of genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))

(2016/C 191/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Danila Facchinello (Molinella, Italy) (represented by: F. Torlontano, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Olimpia Splendid Spa (Gualtieri, Italy) (represented by: A. Ferrarese and G. Ferrarese, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2169/2013-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Olimpia Splendid SpA and Ms Danila Facchinello.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Danila Facchinello to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Danila Facchinello to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

1

---
# C_2015245EN.01001201.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Secția penală și de minori (Romania) lodged on 25 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi

(Case C-241/15)

(2015/C 245/15)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj — Secția penală și de minori

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Niculaie Aurel Bob-Dogi

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | For the purposes of the application of Article 8(1)(c) of the Framework Decision [2002/584/JHA] (1), must the expression ‘the existence of an ... arrest warrant’ be understood to refer to a national — domestic — arrest warrant issued in accordance with the criminal procedural rules of the issuing Member State, and therefore distinct from the European arrest warrant? |
| --- | --- |

1)

For the purposes of the application of Article 8(1)(c) of the Framework Decision [2002/584/JHA] (1), must the expression ‘the existence of an ... arrest warrant’ be understood to refer to a national — domestic — arrest warrant issued in accordance with the criminal procedural rules of the issuing Member State, and therefore distinct from the European arrest warrant?

1

| 2) | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the non-existence of a national — domestic — arrest warrant constitute an implied reason for non-execution of the European arrest warrant? |
| --- | --- |

2)

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the non-existence of a national — domestic — arrest warrant constitute an implied reason for non-execution of the European arrest warrant?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2016090EN.01000302.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2015 — Wallenborn Transports SA v Hauptzollamt Gießen

(Case C-571/15)

(2016/C 090/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wallenborn Transports SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Gießen

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Question 1:

Is the VAT rule of a Member State which states that free zones of control type I (free ports) do not form part of the territory of the country one of the situations referred to in Article 156 as specified in the first subparagraph of Article 61 and in the first subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

1

If this question is answered in the affirmative:

Question 2:

Where goods are subject to customs duties, does the chargeable event also occur and VAT also become chargeable in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax when the chargeable event in respect of those duties occurs and those duties become chargeable, if the chargeable event in respect of those duties and the chargeability of those duties occurs within a free zone of control type I and the VAT legislation of the Member State to which the free zone belongs provides that free zones of control type I (free ports) do not form part of the territory of the country?

If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

Question 3:

Where goods transported under the external transit procedure without that procedure ending in a free zone of control type I are removed from customs supervision in the free zone so that a customs debt is incurred in respect of the goods under Article 203(1) of the Customs Code, (2) does the chargeable event occur and VAT become chargeable in respect of goods at the same time in accordance with another chargeable event, namely under Article 204(1)(a) of the Customs Code, because, prior to the act by means of which the goods were removed from customs supervision, the goods were not presented to customs at one of the customs offices competent in respect of the free zone situated within the territory of the country and the transit procedure was not ended there?

2

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

2

---
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

** **

** **

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1,2016, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer andSpecial Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, andDEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Certificate Administrator, PayingAgent and Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, COMM 2016-787S (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.07 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President 

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
# C_2008067EN.01000801.xml

| 12.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 March 2008

(2008/C 67/04)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,5379 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 158,37 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4562 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,76455 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3765 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5790 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 104,67 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8780 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,125 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 260,69 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6969 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,5338 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6919 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 32,347 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8942 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6603 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5261 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,9787 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9158 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1351 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 487,92 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,1032 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,9235 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2715 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 128,69 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9228 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,208 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,6600 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,521 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6000 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5986 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,5379

JPY

Japanese yen

158,37

DKK

Danish krone

7,4562

GBP

Pound sterling

0,76455

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3765

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5790

ISK

Iceland króna

104,67

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8780

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,125

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

260,69

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6969

PLN

Polish zloty

3,5338

RON

Romanian leu

3,6919

SKK

Slovak koruna

32,347

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8942

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6603

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5261

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,9787

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9158

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1351

KRW

South Korean won

1 487,92

ZAR

South African rand

12,1032

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,9235

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2715

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 128,69

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9228

PHP

Philippine peso

63,208

RUB

Russian rouble

36,6600

THB

Thai baht

48,521

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6000

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5986

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2017053EN.01001802.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Länsförsäkringar AB v Matek A/S

(Case C-654/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1)(b) - Article 15(1) - Article 51(1)(a) - Extent of the exclusive right granted to the proprietor - Period of five years following registration))

(2017/C 053/22)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Länsförsäkringar AB

Applicant:

Defendant: Matek A/S

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark, read in conjunction with Articles 15(1) and 51(1)(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, during the period of five years following registration of an EU trade mark, its proprietor may, if there is a likelihood of confusion, prevent third parties from using in the course of trade a sign identical or similar to his mark in respect of all goods and services identical or similar to those for which that mark has been registered without having to demonstrate genuine use of that mark in respect of those goods or services.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

1

---
# C_2016296EN.01001501.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Munich Finance Court, Germany)) — Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS) v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-288/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Subheading 6211 3310 00 0 - Aprons - Anti-radiation protective coats))

(2016/C 296/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht München (Munich Finance Court, Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Medical Imaging Systems GmbH (MIS)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that an anti-radiation protective apron-coat, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified in subheading 6211 33 10 00 0 of the CN due to its objective characteristics and properties, including, in particular, its external appearance, without it being necessary to refer to the components conferring on the product in question its essential character.

---

(1)  OJ C 394, 7.9.2015.

1

---