alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 25773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10029]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,629; TA-W-62,629A]


Giant Merchandising, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From 
Priority Temporary Services, Partners In Diversity and Apple One 
Commerce, CA; Including An Employee in Support of Giant Merchandising, 
Inc., Commerce, CA Operating Out of Rochester, MN; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on January 28, 2008, applicable to workers 
of Giant Merchandising, Inc., including on-site leased workers from 
Priority Temporary Services, Partners In Diversity and Apple One, 
Commerce, California. The notice was published in the Federal Register 
on February 13, 2008 (73 FR 8369).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm.
    New information shows that a worker separation (Mr. Halton Hamer) 
has occurred involving an employee in support of and under the control 
of the Commerce, California facility of Giant Merchandising, Inc. 
operating out of Rochester, Minnesota.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include an employee in support of the Commerce, 
California facility operating out of Rochester, Minnesota.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Giant Merchandising, Inc., Commerce, California who were 
adversely affected by a shift in production of screen printed apparel 
to Mexico.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,629 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Giant Merchandising, Inc., including on-site 
leased workers from Priority Temporary Services, Partners In 
Diversity, and Apple One, Commerce, California (TA-W-62,629), 
including an employee in support of Giant Merchandising, Inc., 
Commerce, California operating out of Rochester, Minnesota (TA-W-
62,629A), who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after December 10, 2006, through January 28, 2010, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative 
trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 
1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of April 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-10029 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1967

___________________________ Eloy Galarza-Sanchez lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner

v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: February 14, 2020 Filed: February 21, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Mexican citizen Eloy Galarza-Sanchez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge, which denied his motion to terminate removal proceeding s, and ordered him removed to Mexico. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, t his court denies the petition because Galarza-Sanchez’s challenge to the agency’sjurisdiction over his removal proceedings is foreclosed by this court’s p recedent. See

Ali v. Barr , 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019). The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2019

No. 04-18-00740-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.S., A CHILD,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-02168

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On December 5, 2018, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Vincent Petrucci, filed a 

notice of appearance as counsel on behalf of appellee – the State of Texas. Appellee’s brief was 

due December 20, 2018. However, at this time, appellee has not filed a brief or a motion for 

extension of time. 

We therefore ORDER appellee, who is represented by attorney Vincent Petrucci, to file a

brief in this court on or before January 28, 2019. If appellee fails to file its brief on or before 

the date ordered, we will order the appeal submitted without one.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
# C_2015046EN.01000801.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 December 2014 — Peter Schönberger v European Parliament

(Case C-261/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to file the petition - Action for annulment - Concept of a ‘challengeable act’))

(2015/C 046/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Peter Schönberger (represented by: O. Mader, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and E. Waldherr, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2) | Orders Mr Peter Schönberger to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Mr Peter Schönberger to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---
No. 54399.

#### Schroeder Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 127407-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2012366EN.01003901.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/39

---

Action brought on 28 September 2012 — Steiff v OHIM (Metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)

(Case T-433/12)

2012/C 366/78

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by D. Fissl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2012 in Case R 1693/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2012 in Case R 1693/2011-1;

| — | Annul OHIM’s rejection of Community trade mark application No 9 439 613; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul OHIM’s rejection of Community trade mark application No 9 439 613;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the positional mark with which protection is claimed for a gleaming or matt, round metal button fastened to the middle section of the ear of a soft toy for goods in Class 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 439 613

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
Guidance for Industry

Aerosol Steroid Product Safety

Information in Prescription Drug

Advertising and Promotional

Labeling

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Food and Drug Administration

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)

December 1997

DDMAC 1
Guidance for Industry

Aerosol Steroid Product Safety

Information in Prescription Drug

Advertising and Promotional

Labeling 

Additional copies are available from:

Office of Training and Communications 

Division of Communications Management

Drug Information Branch, HFD-210

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

(Tel) 301-827-4573

(Internet) http://www.fda.gov/CDER/guidance/index.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Food and Drug Administration

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)

December 1997

DDMAC 1
This guidance has been prepared by the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications in the 1

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the Food and Drug Administration. This guidance document

represents the Agency’s current thinking on aerosol steroid safety information in prescription drug advertising and

labeling. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An

alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute, regulations, or

both. Additional copies of this draft guidance document are available from the Drug Information Branch, Division of

Communications Management, HFD-210, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (Tel) 301-827-4573.

GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY1

Aerosol Steroid Product Safety Information 

in Prescription Drug Advertising and Promotional Labeling

I. INTRODUCTION

Aerosol steroid products (i.e., inhaled corticosteroid drug products) may be used after a course of

therapy with systemic steroids. Labeling for all aerosol steroid products contains a prominent

boxed warning that describes the importance of switching carefully from systemic to inhaled

steroids to prevent the life-threatening occurrence of adrenal insufficiency. 

II. PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENT IN ADVERTISEMENTS AND LABELING

Certain precautionary information addressing the life-threatening occurrence of adrenal

insufficiency when patients switch from systemic to aerosol steroid products should be included in

advertising and promotional labeling for the aerosol steroid products. Advertisements and

promotional labeling that only contain a notice referring to the brief summary or full prescribing

information for this precautionary information would not meet the fair balance requirements under

§ 202.1, “True Statement” of information (21 CFR 202.1(e)(5)).

Therefore, all advertisements and labeling for aerosol steroid products should contain within the

body of the advertisement or labeling piece a prominent note similar to the following:

CAUTION: ADRENAL INSUFFICIENCY MAY OCCUR WHEN

TRANSFERRING PATIENTS FROM SYSTEMIC STEROIDS (SEE

WARNINGS)
Before the Second Division,

August 17, 1938

No. 39227.

#### Protests 180054-G, etc., of Bernard, Judae & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Articles in chief value of artificial silk similar to the merchandise involved in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed.
#### DONLAN v. F. H. McGRAW & CO.

Civ. No. 9547.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

Dec. 28, 1948.

*600Barry & Lynch, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Gay & Behrens, of New York City, for defendant.

GALSTON, District Judge.

This motion presents an interesting question of interpretation of Sec. 1446(e) of Title 28 U.S.C.A., the recently enacted Federal Code.

The plaintiff by motion seeks to have the action remanded to the Supreme Court of Queens County, where the action was instituted, on the ground that notice of the filing of defendant’s petition and accompanying bond in this court was not served upon the plaintiff, nor a copy of the petition filed with the clerk of the state court until the day following.

Secs. 1441-1450 of Title 28 relate to removal of actions from state courts. Under -the former Code, removal petitions were required to be filed in the state court in which the action was brought. That practice no longer obtains, for now the Code provides for the removal of the state action by filing a petition in the federal court to which removal is sought. See Sec. 1441.

Sec. 1446 defines the procedure for removal. Subdivision (b) requires that such petition be filed within twenty days after the commencement of the action in the state court, and subdivision (d) that the petition be accompanied by a bond conditioned to pay costs and disbursements incurred by reason of the removal proceedings should it be determined that the case was not removable, or was improperly removed. Subdivision (e) reads:

“Upon the filing of such petition and bond the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the petition with the clerk of such State court, which shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further therein unless the case is remanded.”

It is clear that it was not contemplated that the removal be considered complete until the requirements of subdivision (e) were complied with. It follows therefore that in the interim between the filing of the petition and bond by the defendant in the federal court, and the giving of notice to the plaintiff and the filing of a copy of the petition with the clerk of the state court, the plaintiff would be free to proceed with the action in the state court. He would in no sense be stayed. However, there is no requirement that the filing of the petition and bond in the federal court and the giving of notice to the plaintiff and filing a copy of the petition .in the state court shall be effected simultaneously. If then it appears, as it does in this case, that the petition and bond were filed in this court on the twentieth day, and that on the following day, December 8, 1948, papers were filed in the office of the County Clerk of Queens County, and that on the same day copies thereof were served upon the attorneys for the plaintiff, and that in the interim no step was taken in the state court action, there was a practical and substantial compliance with the statute.

The motion to remand is accordingly denied.
No. 44391.

#### Protest 25205-K of New York Mdse. Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dalligner, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of marcel irons similar to those the subject of Abstract 38680. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
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

# 3rd Wing Transfers C-17 Aircraft Supply to 176th

By Airman 1st Class Crystal A. JenkinsJBER Public Affairs

                JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, Alaska  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON673d Logistics Readiness SquadronAlaska Air National Guard635th Supply Chain Operations WingScott Air Force Basenational guardpartsaircraft parts
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas M. Sheppard, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this interim report on Form 10-QSB of FirstBingo.com;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this interim 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 annual report; and

3.   ; Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this interim 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 interim report.

4.   The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls; and

6.   The Company's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated this 12th day of August, 2003.



| | /s/ Thomas M. Sheppard
Thomas M. Sheppard 
Secretary, Principal Executive Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---
# C_2013207EN.01003001.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 May 2013 — Nutricia NV; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-267/13)

2013/C 207/49

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Nutricia NV

Appellant:

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the concept of ‘medicament’ within the meaning of heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as also including food preparations such as the products at issue, which are intended exclusively to be administered enterally (by means of a stomach tube) under medical supervision to persons who are undergoing medical treatment for a disease or ailment and who have the product administered to them as part of the control of that disease or ailment in order to control or prevent malnutrition? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the concept of ‘medicament’ within the meaning of heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as also including food preparations such as the products at issue, which are intended exclusively to be administered enterally (by means of a stomach tube) under medical supervision to persons who are undergoing medical treatment for a disease or ailment and who have the product administered to them as part of the control of that disease or ailment in order to control or prevent malnutrition?

| 2. | Must the concept of ‘beverages’ within the meaning of heading 2202 of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as including liquid foodstuffs such as the products at issue, which are not intended to be drunk but to be administered enterally (by means of a stomach tube)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the concept of ‘beverages’ within the meaning of heading 2202 of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as including liquid foodstuffs such as the products at issue, which are not intended to be drunk but to be administered enterally (by means of a stomach tube)?

---
Before the Third Division,

June 14, 1961

No. 65816.

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States,

protest 60/26753-16071 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the items in question consist of bonbon dishes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Butler Bros.*(33 C.C.P.A. 22, C.A.D. 310), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.