alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 48810.

#### Protest 698908-G of M. S. Levy & Sons, Inc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of 8-bu. paper hats, similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained as to this item.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9307]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the 
Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting 
on June 5, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Tuesday, June 5, 2007--10:30 a.m. until 5 p.m.
    The Subcommittee will review the Vermont Yankee license renewal 
application and the associated Safety Evaluation Report (SER) prepared 
by the NRR staff. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Entergy Nuclear 
Operations, Inc., and other interested persons regarding this matter. 
The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, 
for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. 
Michael Junge (telephone 301/415-6855) five days prior to the meeting, 
if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 
p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact 
the above named individual at least two working days prior to the 
meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: May 8, 2007.
Cayetano Santos,
Branch Chief, ACRS.
[FR Doc. E7-9307 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
# C_2013026EN.01003401.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2012 — CTP v Regione Campania, Provincia di Napoli

(Case C-516/12)

2013/C 26/63

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CTP — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA

Applicant:

Defendants: Regione Campania, Provincia di Napoli

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Does the right to compensation arise, for the purposes of Article 4 of Regulation No 1191/69, (1) only where, following the submission of an appropriate application, the competent authorities have not terminated the public service obligation which imposes an economic disadvantage on the transport undertaking, or is that provision applicable only in respect of service obligations which are to be terminated and cannot be maintained under the regulation?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1).

1

---
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-109183,333-110678, 333-113192, 333-117441, 333-117443, 333-125901 and 333-130091 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements Nos. 333-119690, 333-109917, 333-99645, 333-74124, 333-55364, 333-34202 and 333-42952 on Form S-8 of our (1) reports datedSeptember 26, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Avanex Corporation and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to theadoption of the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment); and (2) our report dated September 26, 2006, relating to internal control over financial reporting (which expresses an adverse opinion on theeffectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of material weaknesses) appearingin this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Avanex Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2006. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

September 26, 2006
SERVED: FEBRUARY 7, 2012 

0[:rv\RTMENTOF 

iRANSPORWION 

••'JCi-El'OPERATIONS 

mi FEB -3 P i: t.3 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

JOSEP H MOESSER 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Case) 

DMSNo. FAA-20IM286 

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

AND ACCEPTING ANSWER 

The basis for ihe Motion for Decision {"Motion") of January 10, 2012 filed by 

Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") was the failure of 

Respondent Joseph Moesser ("Respondent") to file a timely Answer to Complainant's 

Complaint. An Order to Show Cause ("OSC") was issued under date of January 31, 

2012, directing Respondent to file an Answer by February 10, 2012, or risk sanctions. 

Respondent on February 6, 2012, responded to the OSC and submitted a 

purported Answer. Respondent has adequately explained why it initially failed to file an 

Answer. Respondent also substantively addresses the Complaint's allegations. 

It is found and concluded that Respondent has submitted a proper Answer to 

Complainant's Complaint. 

In view of the foregoing, it is ordered as follows: 
1 - Respondent's document is hereby ACCEPTED for filing as its Answer; and 

2 - The Order to Show Cause is hereby VACATED. 

Richard C. Goodwin ^ ^ 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-2011-1286 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Gregory G. Skordas, RespondenCs Counsel 

Skordas, Caston & Hyde, LLC 

341 South Main Street, Suite 303 

Sah Lake City, UT 84111-2707 

TEL: 801-531-7444 

FAX: 801-531-8885 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Comp/ainant 's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

•Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton,WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX. 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Admmisiialive Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For scr\'ice in person or by expedilcd courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Adniinislmtioa 600 Independence Avcmic. S W , Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000. Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
EXHIBIT 99





                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2002 of First Kansas Financial Corporation (the "Company") as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Larry V. Bailey,
President and Chief Executive Officer, and James J. Casaert,  Vice President and
Treasurer (Principal Accounting Officer),  hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.


/s/ Larry V. Bailey                              /s/ James J. Casaert
-------------------------------------            -------------------------------
Larry V. Bailey                                  James J. Casaert
President and Chief Executive Officer            Vice President and Treasurer



March 12, 2003
(Reap. Dec. 9065)

#### H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 15784.

(Decided February 7, 1958)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise involved in the above appeal consists of Perfume exported from France.

> That at the time of exportation thereof, such or similar Perfume was not being freely offered for sale for home consumption in France, or for export to the United States, or for sale in the principal markets of the United States, in accordance with the provisions of Section 402 (c), (d), and (e), of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

> That at the time of exportation thereof, the “cost of production” of such Perfume, as defined in Section 402 (f) of the aforesaid act, is the invoice unit price plus packing as shown on the invoice for items No. 4211 and No. 4320.

> That the appeal is abandoned as to items other than the foregoing.

> *%*# ‡ ^ Hi ' Hi

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as defined in section .402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of items No. 4211 and No. 4320, and that such values are the invoice unit prices plus packing, as shown on the invoice.

*687As to all other items than the foregoing, the appeal having been abandoned, the values for the merchandise are those found by the appraiser.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
33958.

#### BROWN v. EVANS.

Per curiam.

Appellant filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Commissioner of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation to produce certain documents and an affidavit of poverty in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis. The trial court refused to sanction the petition because of the insufficiency of the affidavit. We agree and affirm.

*475Submitted August 25, 1978

Decided October 31, 1978.

Earl Lee Brown, *pro se.*

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, William B. Hill, Jr., Staff Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Jordan, J., who concurs in the judgment only.*
No. 96-5968.

#### Massey *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 55554.

#### The Frank Tea *&*Spice Co. *v.*United States,

protest 170426-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of laurel leaves similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Levy & Levis Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(23 Cust. Ct. 8, C. D. 1180), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2012138EN.01003202.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/32

---

Action brought on 27 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-12/12)

(2012/C 138/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request for classification at grade AD 11 with retroactive effect as at 1 January 2010 and compensation for damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision adopted on 18 October 2011 refusing the applicant’s reclassification at grade AD 11 as from 1 January 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted on 18 October 2011 refusing the applicant’s reclassification at grade AD 11 as from 1 January 2010;

| — | award compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant for which equitable compensation is estimated to be EUR 22 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

award compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant for which equitable compensation is estimated to be EUR 22 000;

| — | alternatively, award compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant of EUR 11 742,48 for the year 2010, plus, for the following period until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case, a variable amount, with the addition of default and compensatory interest at the required legal rates; and with the addition to that first total of a fixed sum assessed by the Tribunal as appropriate for the compensation for the second component of material damage: the amount of which may be provisionally fixed at EUR 120 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, award compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant of EUR 11 742,48 for the year 2010, plus, for the following period until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case, a variable amount, with the addition of default and compensatory interest at the required legal rates; and with the addition to that first total of a fixed sum assessed by the Tribunal as appropriate for the compensation for the second component of material damage: the amount of which may be provisionally fixed at EUR 120 000;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated October 31, 2006, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on November 7, 2006, (71 FR 65135), Siegfried (USA), Inc., Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I and II: Drug
ScheduleDihydromorphine (9145)
IOxymorphone (9652)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Siegfried (USA), Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Siegfried (USA), Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: May 14, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E7-9615 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1488 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1488

  To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for abortions, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2011

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for abortions, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hyde Amendment Codification Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS.

    Title 1 of the United States Code is amended by adding at the end 
the following new chapter:

          ``CHAPTER 4--PROHIBITING FEDERALLY FUNDED ABORTIONS

``SEC. 301. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS.

    ``(a) In General.--No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal 
law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are 
authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any 
abortion.
    ``(b) Health Benefits Coverage.--No funds authorized or 
appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to 
which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be 
expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of 
abortion.

``SEC. 302. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR 
              PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

    ``The limitations established in sections 301 shall not apply to an 
abortion--
            ``(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or 
        incest; or
            ``(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical 
        disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a 
        life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
        the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, 
        place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is 
        performed.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.1

                               FREEMAN & DAVIS LLP
                          Certified Public Accountants



Harold N. London, CPA                           225 West 34th Street, Suite 320
Robert H. Feldstein, CPA                        New York, N.Y.  10122-0397
Stuart H. Levitt, CPA                           Telephone: 212-594-8155
Gerald Lubowsky, CPA                            Telecopier: 212-465-0520
Arthur Schwartzman, CPA
Mark B. Feldstein, CPA
Philip J. London, CPA
Stace N. Balitsos, CPA
Richard J. Wolbrom

                                  July 16, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission              450 5th Street, N.W.
                                                Washington, DC 20549

Gentlemen:

           We have read and agree with the comments in Item 4 of Form 8-K of
Indigo Energy, Inc. (Commission File Number 811-3584) dated July 10, 2002.



Freeman & Davis LLP
New York, New York
July 16, 2002
# C_2012258EN.01001302.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 2 July 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Lundberg

(Case C-317/12)

2012/C 258/21

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Daniel Lundberg

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the expression ‘non-commercial carriage of goods’ in Article 3(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) be interpreted as covering carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his hobby but which is in part financed by financial contributions (sponsorship) from external persons or undertakings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the expression ‘non-commercial carriage of goods’ in Article 3(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) be interpreted as covering carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his hobby but which is in part financed by financial contributions (sponsorship) from external persons or undertakings?

1

| 2. | Is it relevant to the assessment of what constitutes ‘non-commercial carriage’:






  (a) | that the driver makes the journey only for his own purposes? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Is it relevant to the assessment of what constitutes ‘non-commercial carriage’:

(a)

that the driver makes the journey only for his own purposes?

| (b) | that no payment is made for the carriage per se? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

that no payment is made for the carriage per se?

| (c) | how large the financial contribution is and/or how large the financial contribution is in relation to the total cost of the hobby activity? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

how large the financial contribution is and/or how large the financial contribution is in relation to the total cost of the hobby activity?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (Text with EEA relevance) — Declaration (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).

1

---
**Exhibit 13.2**

----

**CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT          TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES – OXLEY          ACT OF 2002**

I, David John Grigson, CFO of Reuters Group PLC (the “Company”) hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:a)    The Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 20-F”)    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; andb) The information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

| By                  |                 |
|---------------------|----------------------|
|                |                 |
| /s/ David J Grigson |                 |
|                |                 |
| David J Grigson     |                 |
| CFO                 | Dated: 16 March 2007 |

 

----