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

[Federal Register: September 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 179)]
[Notices]               
[Page 56553]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16se10-77]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., appendix 2), announcement is made of a Health Care 
Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting.
    A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to 
health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on 
an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ 
support.
    Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-scheduled 
meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. 
Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review meetings 
which require their type of expertise.
    Substantial segments of the upcoming SEP meeting listed below will 
be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(6). Grant applications for the CHIPRA Pediatric Healthcare 
Quality Measures (U18) applications are to be reviewed and discussed at 
this meeting. These discussions are likely to reveal personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the applications. 
This information is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the above-
cited statutes.

    SEP Meeting on: CHIPRA Pediatric Healthcare Quality (U18)
    Date: October 18, 2010 (Open on October 18 from 8:30 a.m. to 
8:45 a.m. and closed for the remainder of the meeting).
    Place: Hilton Washington DC/Rockville, Hotel & Executive Meeting 
Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Conference Room TBD, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the nonconfidential portions of this meeting 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 
Telephone (301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.

    Dated: September 7, 2010.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-23111 Filed 9-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
```
# C_2015320EN.01005701.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/57

---

Action brought on 18 August 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-118/15)

(2015/C 320/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. de Montigny, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant under the 2014 promotion procedure.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of 14 November 2014 publishing the list of officials promoted under the 2014 promotion procedure in so far as it does not include the applicant’s name; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 14 November 2014 publishing the list of officials promoted under the 2014 promotion procedure in so far as it does not include the applicant’s name;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                         9
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      150,980
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          380
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             92,252
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 869,359
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       44,417
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         45,548
<LOANS>                                   3,215,839
<ALLOWANCE>                                  48,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            4,487,839
<DEPOSITS>                                4,038,652
<SHORT-TERM>                                 39,862
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          48,226
<LONG-TERM>                                   2,251
<COMMON>                                     97,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  261,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>            4,487,839
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              71,581
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            13,438
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                717
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             85,736
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           38,377
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           38,734
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        47,002
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                 3,850
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                3
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              36,083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              20,746
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   20,746
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 13,279
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.550
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.550
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                4.610
<LOANS-NON>                                   2,430
<LOANS-PAST>                                 12,022
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              14,452
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             46,138
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                 2,894
<RECOVERIES>                                  1,172
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            48,266
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         42,094
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       6,172
        

</TABLE>
##### U.S. Geological SurveyGeologic Investigations Series I-2585

# Digital Shaded-Relief Image of Alaska

By J.R. Riehle, M.D. Fleming, B.F. Molnia, J.H. Dover, J.S. Kelley, M.L. Miller, W.J. Nokleberg, George Plafker, and A.B. Till1997
#### In the Matter of James Douglas IMPSON, Debtor. James Douglas Impson, Appellant, v. Daniel Jacob Goldberg, Appellee.

No. 04-41358.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 21, 2005.

*575James Douglas Impson, Federal Correetional Institution, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James Impson is a *pro se*federal prisoner. He filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding as debtor. In the bankruptcy court, creditor Daniel Goldberg moved to dismiss, and Impson filed no opposition. The bankruptcy court accordingly entered an order of dismissal on July 16, 2004

Impson filed a notice of appeal to the district court 35 days later, on September 2, 2004. The district court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was untimely under Fed. Bankr.R. 8002(a), which requires that a notice of appeal be filed within 10 days. Impson timely filed a notice of appeal to this court.

In his brief, Impson admits that he “is unable to offer any legal authority which supports his claim, so [he] will appeal to the common sense of this court to decide the issues.” Impson asserts that he did not always receive his mail in prison. As the district court noted, however, under Fed. Bankr.R. 9002, “[l]ack of notice of the entry [of a judgment or order] does not affect the time to appeal or authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed.”

The district court was correct in dismissing the appeal to it. The district court’s judgment of dismissal, accordingly, is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 31.2


I, Edward P. Mooney, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Trinity Learning
     Corporation;

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 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 control over financial
          reporting;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer 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 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.


Date: February 11, 2005

      /S/ EDWARD P. MOONEY
      --------------------

      Edward P. Mooney
      President and Chief Financial Officer
USCA Case #12-1451 Document#1439922 Filed: 06106/2013 Page 1 of 1 

## ;lliuitdt**~tates** 

## <!loud of 

# J\ppeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

### No. 12-1451

Ventura Air Services, Inc., Petitioner
v. Federal Aviation Administration, Respondent 

### September Term, 2012 FAA-2012-12 Filed On: June 6, 2013 [14399221

ORDER Upon consideration of the stipulation for dismissal of this petition for review, it is ORDERED that the Clerk note on thedocketthat this case is dismissed. No mandate will issue. FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: /s/ Mark A. Butler Deputy ClerkUSCA Case #12-1451 Document #1437739 Filed: 05/23/2013 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
VenturaAir Services, Inc., Petitioner,
v. Federal Aviation Administration, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petition for Review DocketNo. 12-1451 September Term, 2012 FAA-2012-12

### ----------~) STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Pursuant to the Rule 42(,b) ofthe**Fe.~eral** Rules ofAppellate -I' ' , Procedure, the above-captionedparties, by and throughundersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to a voluntary dismissal ofthe docketed Petition for Reviewwith prejudice. The parties further agree that each will bear its
own costs and fees. DATED: Rockville, MD May 23,2013 Respectfully submitted, Gregory 

### S. Winton Is/ Gregory S. Winton, Esq. (D.C. Bar#438670) One Research Court, Suite 450 Rocl}ville, MD 20850 Tel:(301) 294-8550 Greg@aviationlawexperts.com COUNSEL FORPETITIONERUSCA Case #12-1451 Document #1437739 Filed: 05/23/2013 Page 2 of 3



### s/ AgnesM Rodriguez Agnes M. Rodriguez Attorney Federal Aviation Administration

\' .,...:, Office ofChiefCounsel, AGC-300 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591 Tel: 202-267-7268 Fax: 202-267-5106 rusnes.rodriguez@fa.a.gov COUNSEL FORRESPONDENT

2USCA Case #12-1451 Document #1437739 Filed: 05/23/2013 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date, May 23, 2013, sent viaU.S. Mail, postage prepaid, one copy ofthe foregoing STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE addressed to: Agnes M. Rodriguez Attorney Federal Aviation Administration ' Office ofChiefCounsel, AGC-300 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591 Gregory 

### S. Winton Is/ Gregory S. Winton, Esq. (D.C. Bar#438670)

3
# C_2017249EN.01002401.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2017 — Fakro v EUIPO — Saint Gobain Cristalería (climaVera)

(Case T-457/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark climaVera - Earlier EU word mark CLIMAVER DECO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 249/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fakro sp. z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by E. Bayo de Gispert, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2015 (Case R 2095/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Saint Gobain Cristalería and Fakro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Fakro sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Fakro sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

---
# C_2017178EN.01001901.xml

| 6.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/19

---

Order of the General Court of 27 March 2017 — Frank v Commission

(Case T-603/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 - Decision of the ERCEA declaring the proposal submitted by the applicant ineligible - Implied decision of the Commission rejecting the administrative appeal relating to the decision of the ERCEA - Incorrect designation of the defendant - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 178/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Regine Frank (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: initially W. Trautner, subsequently by E. Niitväli and M. Reysen, then by E. Niitväli, M. Reysen and S. Wachs, and finally S. Conrad, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, acting as agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) of 5 June 2015 relating, in the context of the ‘ERC starting grant’ programme, to proposal No 680151 of the applicant — which was not given a positive evaluation during step 1 and was not admitted to step 2 of the evaluation — and the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal pursuant to Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Ms Regine Frank and the European Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Regine Frank and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

1

---
# C_2016191EN.01000301.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/3

---

Appeal brought on 10 September 2015 by Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2015 in Case T-548/12 Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG v OHIM

Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG

OHIM

(Case C-487/15 P)

(2016/C 191/04)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (represented by: J. Krenzel, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Redrock Construction s.r.o.

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 25 February 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible.

---
Before the Second Division,

June 5, 1958

No. 62046.

#### Wilbur B. Driver Co. and Import Export Service of N. J. *v.*United States,

protest 195431-K (New York).

Opinion by

Laweence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of steel rolls, ground but not polished, the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 59597, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 53779.

protest 149883-K (New York).

#### American Ferment Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the"merehandise in question is the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
Before the First Division,

November 28, 1950

No. 54876.

#### The United Import Co. *v.*United States,

protest 126841-K (San Francisco).

*319Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the miniature leather gloves the subject of *United States*v. *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 32, C. A. D. 415), the claim *oí the*plaintiff was sustained.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 230]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ230.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 877]]

Public Law 110-230
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
               1965. <<NOTE: May 13, 2008 -  [S. 2929]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) Extension of Programs.--Section 2(a) of the Higher Education 
Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is 
amended by striking ``April 30, 2008'' and inserting ``May 31, 2008''.
    (b) <<NOTE: 20 USC 1001 note.>>  Rule of Construction.--Nothing in 
this section, or in the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as 
amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise alter the 
authorizations of appropriations for, or the durations of, programs 
contained in the amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation 
Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) or by the College Cost Reduction and 
Access Act (Public Law 110-84) to the provisions of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.

    (c) <<NOTE: 20 USC 1001 note.>>  Effective Date.--The amendment made 
by subsection (a) shall take effect as if enacted on April 30, 2008.

    Approved May 13, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2929:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            Apr. 29, considered and passed Senate.
            May 5, 6, considered and passed House, amended.
            May 7, Senate concurred in House amendment.

                                  <all>
```