alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[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: E7-9308]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee 
Meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Revised

    A portion of the ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic 
Phenomena scheduled to be held on May 15-16, 2007, Commissioners' 
Conference Room O-1G16, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, will 
be closed to discuss vendor proprietary information pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). All other items pertaining to this meeting remain 
the same as published previously in the Federal Register on Wednesday, 
May 2, 2007 (72 FR 24339).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Zena Abdullahi, Designated Federal 
Official (Telephone: 301-415-2808) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET) 
or by e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7dddfc6e7c9d5c489c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="473d3f260729352469202831">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 9, 2007.
Cayetano Santos,
Branch Chief, ACRS.
[FR Doc. E7-9308 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Records overhaul helps agency comply with Archives standards

By Amber McSherryDLA Information Operations

Supervisors and data owners at all levels are required to manage records in accordance with regulation,  but this requires attention from all employees, said Cecilia Wiker, the records officer for Information Operations. Wiker leads a team of 16 records officers, including Spikes, at six sites. “It’s these little wins that keep us records managers going and re-motivates us,” she said.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Information OperationsNARAstoragerecordsFOIAinformationDatarecordfilesarchives
No. 49496.

#### Protests 419-K, etc., of Ardsley Trading Corporation et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 92-1676.

#### Kaufmann *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Vincent P. Maligno, Defendant.

County Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

April 12, 1966.

*1010
      *George E. Mulry*for defendant. *William Calm, District Attorney,*for plaintiff.

Martin M. Kolbrener,, J.

The defendant moves, pursuant

to section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to be prosecuted by indictment, and to stay the proceedings pending in the District Court.

The defendant is charged, in several informations, with serving' alcoholic beverages to minors in violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, and of allowing minors under the age of 16 to frequent a place where liquors are sold, unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, in violation of subdivision 1 of section 484 of the Penal Law.

Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the removal of cases from the District to the County Court upon an appropriate showing, and the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish that the charges be prosecuted by indictment rather than on information in the lower court. *(People*v. *Litteer,*3 Misc 2d 505.)

The defendant should show either that the case presents intricate and complicated questions of fact or law, that the decision will have a far-reaching effect and may become a precedent, that a property right is affected, or that for some special reason the defendant cannot have a fair trial in the lower court. *(People*v. *Killorin,*123 N. Y. S. 2d 612; *People*v. *Moore,*4 Misc 2d 745.) The mere existence of a property right standing alone is insufficient to warrant the transfer required by the defendant. *(People*v. *Stein,*236 N. Y. S. 2d 703.) A jury trial is available to the defendant in the District Court and there is no allegation that a fair trial cannot be had. It is therefore ordered that the motion of the defendant is denied.
No. 74-466.

#### Dunlop, Secretary of Labor *v.*Bachowski et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, 419 U. S. 1068.] Motion of United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, for additional time to present oral argument denied. The alternative request for divided argument granted only if the Solicitor General agrees to cede some of the time allotted petitioner for oral argument.
Exhibit 99.1

The following certification accompanies the issuer's Annual Report on Form 10-K
and is not filed as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8212, 34-47551 and IC-25967,
dated March 21, 2003.

                                ANSWERTHINK, INC

                            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 Annual Report of Answerthink, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted A. Fernandez,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.

                                        /s/  Ted A. Fernandez
                                        ----------------------------
                                        Ted A. Fernandez
                                        Chairman of the Board and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        March 31, 2003
October 1, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MIAMI BEVERLY, LLC , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00736

- CV V.

CHAMPION ENERGY SERV ICES, LLC , App ellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant’ s motion to dismiss the appeal from the summary judgment made final by an order of non

- suit signed by the court below on March 26, 2013 , and amended on May 22, 2013 . Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately. We further order this decision certified below for ob servance.
s 0 50 100 Miles 

## c:J California Air District boundary (with label)**~** Great Basin Valley Intrastate Air Quality Control Region - Lake County Intrastate Air Quality Control Region Lake Tahoe Intrastate Air Quality Control Region - Metropolitan Los Angeles Air Quality Control Region - Mountain Counties Intrastate Air Quality Control Region - North Central Coast Intrastate Air Quality Control Region North Coast Intrastate Air Quality Control Region - Northeast Plateau Intrastate Air Quality Control Region Sacramento Valley Intrastate Air Quality Control Region - San Diego Intrastate Air Quality Control Region - San Francisco Bay Area Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 

### l _j San Joaquin Valley Intrastate Air Quality Control Region South Central Coast Intrastate Air Quality Control Region Southeast Desert Intrastate Air Quality Control Region S an J oaq uin V

all ey Unifie d Santa Barbara 

# ........**~-** ..,..... Ventura 

# .. Santa • Barbara Ventura South 

# ' M o j ave D es en Imperial 

## & EM 

# AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS AND AIR DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA REGION t - AIR AIR14 000 6 0 _Lm xd (J une 30, 2014) So

ui" C.e s : Ti tl e 40, Part 8 1, Subp ar t B . El ec t roni c Co de of F ederal Regu lation s (Jun e 30, 2014), E P A ( 2014) . TANA (2006)
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Corey Goodman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report
on Form 10-Q of Renovis, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: November 10, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Corey Goodman
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | Corey Goodman          
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | Chief Executive Officer



I, John Doyle, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Renovis, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------- |  | -----------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: November 10, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ John Doyle
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                |  | John Doyle             
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                |  | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2014009EN.01002302.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2013 — Recaro v OHIM — Certino Mode (RECARO)

(Case T-524/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark RECARO - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(15)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Nature of the use of the mark - Admissibility of new evidence - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2014/C 9/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (Stuttgart (Germany)) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Certino Mode SL (Elche (Spain))

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1761/2011-1) relating to revocation proceedings between Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH and Certino Mode SL

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Recaro Holding GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Recaro Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

1

---
**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**

|   | (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/                Kwun-Luen Siu |
|   | Kwun-Luen                  SiuChief                  Executive Officer(Principal                  Executive Officer)Date:                  February 14, 2006 |

----
No. 6412.

#### G. A. WEIGAND & CO. vs. A. LOBAIDO, ET AL.

Syllabus.

Involves only issues of fact.

Appeal from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division “C,” No. í.07,992. Honorable E. K. Skinner, Judge.

J. H. Brewer, for plaintiff and appellee.

R. Lyons, curator ad hoc.

Feitel & Feitel, for defendant and appellant.

A. J. Rossi, attorney.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Antonio Lobaido operated a grocery and bar, and purchased certain goods and merchandise from plaintiff.

Almost immediately thereafter, without paying for said goods and merchandise and whilst being pressed by his creditor, he sold and delivered the entire contents of said grocery to Salvatore Galati, nominally for cash, and then disposéd of his person in such wise that neither creditor, nor sheriff, nor other person having any interest in his whereabouts, has since been able to find him.

*378Opinion and decree, June 14th, 1915.

Rehearing refused, June 30th, 1915.

An act of sale under private signature was executed, and duly .acknowledged before a notary, in which, receipt of the purchase price was .acknowledged. No money was paid before the notary, but the parties declared to him that the amount had been paid in full in three several installments before the execution of the act.

We are now asked to believe, on the testimony of Galati, the purchaser, and of a party who claims to have dropped in, just in time to be called as a witness to the fact, that the bulk of the purchase price was paid .at the bar room after the execution of the act of sale and upon the purchaser taking possession; and incidentally almost at the very moment when the creditor was at the barroom inquiring for the whereabouts of Lobaido and clamoring for his pay.

We do not believe it; neither did the District Judge.

. The fraud is a palpable one, and the attachment herein levied by plaintiff was properly sustained.

Judgment .affirmed.
No. 42066.

#### Protests 945508-G, etc., of Louis Greenberg & Sons, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the harmonicas in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 40586. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 1541 (a) was therefore sustained.
Document Headings

                    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 November 21, 2006 and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 1, 2006, (71 FR 69590), Formulation Technologies LLC, 11400 Burnet Road, Suite 4010, Austin, Texas 78758, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of Fentanyl (9801), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.                 

The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for clinical trials, research, analytical purposes and distribution to its customers. 

One objection was received; however, it has subsequently been withdrawn. 

DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Formulation Technologies LLC to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Formulation Technologies LLC 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. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed. 

      ( print page 28074)    
Dated: May 10, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

 [FR Doc. E7-9606 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Guarino, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 201]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered September 10, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (McDonald, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that resolutions of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the hearing court which saw *325and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94; *People v Fraisier,*260 AD2d 398; *People v Wilson,*250 AD2d 788). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). On this record, there is no basis for disturbing the hearing court’s decision to credit the testimony of the arresting police officer.

The police officer’s conduct, in stopping and ultimately searching the defendant, was justified at its inception and reasonably limited in scope at each successive step in response to the circumstances presented *(see, People v Hollman,*79 NY2d 181, 184-185; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223; *People v Cantor,*36 NY2d 106, 112-113; *see also, People v Barnes,*221 AD2d 552; *People v Campbell,*194 AD2d 618, 619; *People v Smith,*190 AD2d 832, 833; *People v Miller,*149 AD2d 538, 540; *People v Tucker,*140 AD2d 887, 889-890).

The credible evidence demonstrates that the police officer observed a bulge in the defendant’s pocket and fearing for his safety he was justified in asking the defendant what was in his pocket. The defendant then voluntarily removed a change purse from his pocket, gave it to the police officer, and consented to it being opened by the officer *(see,*CPL 140.50 [3]; *People v Saunders,*180 AD2d 542; *see also, People v Rivera,*60 NY2d 910, 912; *People v Beriguette,*199 AD2d 515, *affd*84 NY2d 978; *People v Gonzalez,*115 AD2d 73, 79-80, *affd*68 NY2d 950). When the officer opened the change purse he saw credit/debit cards bearing a woman’s name. The defendant denied any knowledge of the credit/debit cards in the change purse. Accordingly, the police officer had probable cause to arrest him *(see, People v Hollman, supra,*at 185; *People v De Bour, supra,*at 223), and suppression of the physical evidence was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.