alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Eastern Long Island Sound Eelgrass 2006 Inventory

Niantic Bay/Jordan Cove/Goshen Cove area Sub-basins

Study Area Locus Map Watershed Sub-basin Locus Map

Eelgrass Cover
High

() Medium New Haven Middlesex

| Low

Field Sites
Eelgrass Found
e Eelgrass Not Found

/\/ Sub-basin Boundary

This map is a product of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National =o, ? i>. —

Wetlands Inventory Program, Region 5, and was produced for the 4 , ‘Te d j Goshen Cove ar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Office of Ecosystem yes = : cae Niantic B
Protection. . lantic bay area

Jordan Cove area

Eelgrass digital data were derived from photo interpretation of 1:20,000-

scale true color photography dated 6/16/06 with intensive field verification.

ADS 2004 TrueColor, Digital Ortho Imagery were obtained from the University

of Connecticut CES program and used as a geo-referencing baseline for

photography. Interpreted information was generated “on screen", using

USFWS 2002 eelgrass delineations as a base layer. 1:20,000

This map was produced with the intent that it be used or displayed at
a scale of 1:20,000. There are no warranties made as to the fitness of
this map for any unlisted purpose or reproduction at any other than
EGU MACT RIA - Interagency comments on Ch 8
12/14/2011 05:39 PM

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Hi Bob, Attached are interagency comments on the redline version of Chapters 8 of

the RIA.

There were no further interagency comments on Chapter 4, but I haven’t checked to see if any previous interagency comments on that chapter have

been addressed.

I’ll send comments on the preamble within the hour.

Regards,
Cortney

Chapter 8_SummaryofCostsandBenefits_1209_I nteragencycommentsunderEO12563.doc
No. 44244.

#### Protest 879745-G of Eurasia Import Co. Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protest was therefore sustained.
# C_2017063EN.01002402.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Speciality Drinks Ltd v EUIPO — William Grant (CLAN)

(Case T-250/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CLAN - Earlier EU word mark CLAN MACGREGOR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods covered by the signs at issue - Relevant public - Interdependence of the criteria - Power to alter - Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Speciality Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: William Grant & Sons Ltd (Dufftown, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Cormack and G. Anderson, Solicitors)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2015 (Case R 220/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between William Grant & Sons Ltd and Speciality Drinks Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Speciality Drinks Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Speciality Drinks Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

1

---
AFS-13-540-E

November 4, 2013

 Exemption No. 10886

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0808

Mr. Timothy P. Kissel

Vice President of Education

MIAT College of Technology

2955 South Haggerty Road

Canton, MI 48188

Dear Mr. Kissel:

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 ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 10, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of MIAT College of Technology (MIAT), for an exemption from § 65.75(a)

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow 

MIAT to administer the aviation mechanic general (AMG) written test to students 

immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but before they 

meet the experience requirements of § 65.77.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to MIAT, and would not serve in the 

public’s interest.

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

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption Nos. 6569 and 8629 (copies 

enclosed), the FAA found that testing immediately after learning was a universally accepted 

instructional principle that reinforces learning. Therefore, we allow the petitioner to test 
2

students immediately after successfully completing the general curriculum but before meeting 

the requirements of § 65.77.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed 

Grant of Exemption Nos. 6569 and 8629;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption Nos. 

6569 and 8629 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. 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant MIAT College of Technology an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 65.75(a) to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to 

students immediately following successful completion of the general curriculum but before 

meeting the experience requirements of § 65.77, subject to the condition and limitation 

described below.

Condition and Limitation

Before exercising the privileges of this exemption, MIAT must provide its operations

handbook to its Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO) and receive approval of the 

operations handbook from the CHDO.

This exemption terminates on October 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosures
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1717

TERRY A. HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS; CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

District Judge. (3:11-cv-00516-FDW-DSC)

Submitted: October 9, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry A. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Terry LaMonte Wallace, 

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry A. Harris appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Harris v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Sch., No. 3:11-cv-00516-

FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. July 2, 2012; Jan. 23, 2013). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2016007EN.01001101.xml

| 11.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping (Sweden) lodged on 22 October 2015 — E.ON Biofor Sverige AB v Statens energimyndighet

(Case C-549/15)

(2016/C 007/17)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.ON Biofor Sverige AB

Applicant:

Defendant: Statens energimyndighet

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the terms ‘mass balance’ and ‘mixture’ in Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States have an obligation to accept trade in biogas between Member States via an interconnected gas network? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the terms ‘mass balance’ and ‘mixture’ in Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States have an obligation to accept trade in biogas between Member States via an interconnected gas network?

1

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, in that case is the relevant provision of the directive compatible with Article 34 TFEU, despite the fact that application thereof is likely to have the effect of restricting trade? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, in that case is the relevant provision of the directive compatible with Article 34 TFEU, despite the fact that application thereof is likely to have the effect of restricting trade?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

1

---
#### Palmer *versus*Goodwin.

A contract, made by a citizen of Massachusetts, with a citizen of this State, for the payment of money, is not barred by a discharge under the insolvent laws of that State.

Assumpsit, by the indorsee against the maker of the following note.

“ Boston, Sept. 7, 1847. Three months after date, I promise to pay E. Moore & Co. or order one hundred and fifty dollars, value received.”

The note was indorsed by the payees and by a second indorser. These indorsers, together with the plaintiff, were always residents of Maine. The defendant was of Massachusetts. After pay-day of the note, he applied for and ob-*536tamed a discharge under the insolvent laws of that State. The case was submitted for nonsuit or default, according to legal rights.

*Danforth*and *Woods,*for the plaintiff.

*Whitmore,*for the defendant.

Shepley, C. J.

A contract made by a citizen of Massachusetts with a citizen of this State to pay a sum of money is not discharged by proceedings under the insolvent Acts of that State. *Savage*v. *Marsh,*10 Metc. 594; *Fiske*v. *Foster, idem.*597. This action is upon a promissory note made by the defendant, a citizen of Massachusetts, and payable to citizens of this State. *Defendant defaulted.*
# C_2020027EN.01002901.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2019 — Yieh United Steel v Commission

(Case T-607/15) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 - Article 2(3) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(3) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Calculation of the normal value - Calculation of the production cost - Sales of the like product intended for consumption on the domestic market of the exporting country)

(2020/C 27/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Yieh United Steel Corp. (Kaohsiung City, Taiwan) (represented by D. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by J. Killick, G. Forwood and C. Van Haute, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2015 L 224, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Yieh United Steel Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Yieh United Steel Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------


                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lester A. Aaron,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 the best of my knowledge:

(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.



                    /s/  Lester A. Aaron
                    --------------------
           Name:    Lester A. Aaron
           Title:   Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
           Date:    August 11, 2005




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and
will be retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016383EN.01003001.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/30

---

Action brought on 12 August 2016 — OT v Commission

(Case F-75/15)

(2016/C 383/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: OT (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decision of 26 September 2014 refusing to accept the applicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and claim for compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant alleges to have suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 26 September 2014 refusing to accept the applicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 26 September 2014 refusing to accept the applicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction;

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 9 April 2015 rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 9 April 2015 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay a sum of EUR 2 836 107 (that is, two million eight hundred and thirty-six thousand one hundred and seven euro) covering the material damages suffered by the Applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay a sum of EUR 2 836 107 (that is, two million eight hundred and thirty-six thousand one hundred and seven euro) covering the material damages suffered by the Applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay a sum of EUR 100 000 (that is one hundred thousand euro) covering the non-material damages suffered by the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay a sum of EUR 100 000 (that is one hundred thousand euro) covering the non-material damages suffered by the applicant; and

| — | order the Defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T H A RV I N D ER K A U R, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72751 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 268- 794 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H a rvi nde rK aur , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h e rs e c o n dm o tio n to r e ope n. O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f

am o tio n to r e o p e n , I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 894 

# FI LED JAN 23 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72751 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n dwe d e n yi n p a rta n dd i s m i s s i n p a rtth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g K au r ’s s e c o n dm o tio n to r e o p e n b e c au s e it w a s u n tim e lya n dn u m e r ic a lly - b a rr e d , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , a n dK au rf a ile dto e s tab lis h c h a n g e dc ir c u m s ta n c e s in I n d iato qua l i f yf orthe r e gul a t orye xc e pt i on t o the t i m e a nd num be rl i m i tf orf i l i ng m ot i ons to r e o p e n , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; T ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 538 F . 3d 988, 996- 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . K au r ’s c o n te n tio n s th a t th e B I A im p r o p e r lya n a ly z e dh e rc la im a nd f a i l e d t o a de qua t e l ye xpl a i n i t s de c i s i on a r e be l i e d bythe r e c or d. W e lac kju risd icti o n to co n sid erK au r’s c o n ten ti o n s r eg ar d in g th e B IA ’s F e brua ry28, 2007, or de rde ny i ng he rf i r s tm ot i on t o r e ope n be c aus e thi s pe t i t i on f o rr e v ie w is n o t tim e lya s to th a t o r d e r . Se e S i n g h v . I NS , 315 F . 3d 1186, 1188 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). In addi t i on , al tho ug h K aur c on t ends otherw i se , w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’ s dec i si on no tt o sua spon t e r eopen rem ov al p r o c e e d in g s . See Mej i a-H erna ndezv. H

older , 63 3 F . 3d 81 8, 82 3-24 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 1 ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
Case No. 8,615.

#### The LYDIA.

[11 Blatchf. 415.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. 15, 1873.2

Negligence — Ferry-Boat—Fog—Vigilance —Ringing of Bell.

1. Important as it is that ferry-boats should be run, and although they are not necessarily bound to stop by reason of a fog. they are bound, when so running, to use vigilance, caution, and skill in some degree proportioned to the increased danger of accident.

2. The court will not now say that the ringing of a bell, or the giving of other audible signal, at the termini of the ferries, as a guide to crossing boats, is required by law; but, it is quite obvious, that it is a useful precaution, and observation suggests that it is not uncommon.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.]

[In admiralty.]

Dennis McMahon, for libellant.

Charles Donohue, for claimant.

2

 [Affirming Case No. 8,614.]

WOODRUFF, Circuit Judge.

I am of opinion that the conclusion of the court below [Case No. 8,614], in regard to the fault of the ferry-boat, was correct. She was out of her course, and within the line of the piers, when she came into collision with the sloop. The preponderance of the evidence is to that effect. It is not shown, and I think it is not true, that, by reasonable and proper skill and care, she could not, in a dense fog, be so steered from Weehawken towards 42d street, as not to be found between the piers and within the exterior line of their ends, opposite 51st street, nearly one-half mile above the slip to which she was bound. Important as it is that ferry-boats should be run, and although they are not necessarily bound to stop by reason of a fog, they are bound, when so running, to use vigilance, caution, and skill in some degree proportioned to the increased danger of accident. The court will not now say that the ringing of a bell, or the giving of other audible signal, at the termini of the ferries, as a guide to crossing boats, is required by law; but, it is quite obvious, that it is a useful precaution, and observation suggests that it is not uncommon.

The question of fault in the sloop is not raised in this court, otherwise than as it is sought thereby to protect the ferry-boat. Her duty to contribute is, therefore, not in question. The libellant should have a decree ill this court for the amount found due, as the contribution of the ferry-boat to the damages sustained by the two vessels, with costs of the appeal.
Small Business
Research Summary