alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20159]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis 
Panel:

    Agenda/Purpose: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: August 8, 1997.
    Time: 8:30 a.m.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott Hotel, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, 
MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Michael D. Hirsch, Parklawn, Room 9-101, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-3936.

    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: August 11, 1997.
    Time: 9 a.m.
    Place: Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20007.
    Contact Person: Donna Ricketts, Parklawn, Room 9-101, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-3936.

    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than fifteen days prior to 
the meetings due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.242, 
93.281, 93.282)

    Dated: July 24, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-20159 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2017104EN.01000502.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Mamoli Robinetteria SpA v European Commission

(Case C-619/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Leniency programme - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Exercise of unlimited jurisdiction))

(2017/C 104/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Mamoli Robinetteria SpA (represented by: F. Capelli and M. Valcada, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, and by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, avvocato)

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 Mamoli Robinetteria SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mamoli Robinetteria SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 8.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                       Name                                    Country                    Ownership
--------------------------------------------------      ----------------------            ---------
<S>                                                     <C>                               <C>
Wing Shing Products (BVI) Company Limited ........      British Virgin Islands              100.0%
Wing Shing Overseas Limited ......................      British Virgin Islands              100.0
Pentalpha Enterprises Limited ....................      Hong Kong                           100.0
Pentalpha Hong Kong Limited ......................      Hong Kong                           100.0
Kwong Lee Shun Trading Company Limited ...........      Hong Kong                           100.0
Dongguan Wing Shing Electrical Products Factory
 Company Limited .................................      China                               100.0
Global-Tech USA, Inc. ............................      United States                       100.0
Pentalpha Macau Commercial Offshore Limited ......      Macau                               100.0
Global Lite Array (BVI) Limited ..................      British Virgin Islands               76.8
Lite Array (BVI) Company Limited* ................      British Virgin Islands               76.8
Lite Array, Inc*. ................................      United States                        76.8
Global Display Limited** .........................      Hong Kong                           100.0
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.b
                                  ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Morgan Beaumont, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Theodore Misiewicz, in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


                                     /S/ THEODORE MISIEWICZ
                                     ----------------------
Date: November 14, 2005              Theodore Misiewicz, Chief Financial Officer
AAM-11-457-E September 21, 2011

Exemption No. 9945A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0884

Ms. Deann J. Shier

Chief Executive Officer Shier Aviation Corporation dba Corporate Helicopters 3753 John J. Montgomery Drive, Suite 2 San Diego, CA 92123

Dear Ms. Shier:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9945. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated Septem ber 8, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Shier Aviation Corporation dba Corporate Helicopters (Corporate Helicopters) for an extension of Exemption No. 9945. That exemption from part 120, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Corporate Helicopters which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

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

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Corporate Helicopters.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9945 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Corporate Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Corporate Helicopters part 135 operation, not under the part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 9945 to October 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9945 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9945.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
1 

### Ton, Huan

From: Burt, Stephanie (S) [sburt@dow.com]

Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 10:31 PM

To: Semeniuk, Michael

Cc: Kasakevich, Jean (JC)

Subject: DOW CD for EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0182

Attachments: Mor-Free L 75-149 C117 TDS.pdf; Mor-Free L 75-164 C-411 Controlled Tear TDS.pdf; MorFree L 75-164 C-78F TDS.pdf; Mor-Free L 75- 164 BHT-Modified C-411 TDS.pdf; Mor-Free L

75-173 C-132-2 TDS.pdf; Robond PLA-WB CR WB-PLA TDS.pdf; FW: DOW CD for EPA

Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0182

Dear Michael

‐ Per your conversation with Jean Kasakevich in July, I understand you are having difficulty opening several

of the documents we submitted to you as part of the September 2012 data call. Your original request is attached. I am

having difficulty locating the latter half of your request. However, while I track down those documents I wanted to fulfill

the first part of your requests for the Technical Data Sheets (TSDs). The public and CBI versions are the same. As soon

as I locate the remaining relevant files, I will forward them to you.

Thank you.

Stephanie M. Burt

Associate EH&S Product Stewardship Manager

The Dow Chemical Company

(P) 303-694-1130

(F) 866-876-7940
#### SHEWELL v. MACKINLEY.

October 10, 1835.

*Motion to quash the writ.*

Although a writ of replevin issues for goods at the time under execution, the court will not entertain a motion to quash such writ before the service.

*(¿u&re}*if the court will entertain such motion at any time, when made only by the *sheriff.*

IN this case a writ of replevin had issued to replevy certain goods therein named. There were other writs of replevin against the defendant. These writs were delivered to Benjamin Duncan, sheriff, and security in due form tendered him.

A rule was obtained on behalf of *the sheriff*to show cause why the writs should not be quashed, on the ground (supported by affidavit as to the facts) that at the time of the delivery of the writs to him, the property specified in them was under execution, and in his *55custody, by virtue of a *fieri facias*previously issued out of th¡3 court, directed to him.

*P. A. Browne,*for the rule,

relied on the act of the 3d of April 1779, *Purd. Dig., tit. Rent and Replevin;*Shearich». Huber, *CBinn. 4.*

*Miles, F. W. Hubbell, J. C. Biddle,*and *Ingraham, contra,*

contended : 1. The court will entertain no such motion made by *the sheriff: 2.*At all events, the writ can only be quashed in the language of the act, “ after the service,” which is not the case here.

Per Curiam.

It is unnecessary to determine as to the first point made by the plaintiff’s counsel. The act is express that the court shall have power to quash such writs, upon application, *after the service.*The object was undoubtedly to prevent a fraudulent allegation of an execution in relation to the identity of the goods. Immediately after the service of the replevin, and before they are delivered to the plaintiff (and by our practice the interval affords ample opportunity for the purpose), is the earliest time for an application of this bind. In this way the rights of all parties are best protected, and the responsibility of the sheriff is not increased. Upon the ground, then, that the present application is premature, it is refused.

Rule discharged, (a)

(a)

**See English *v.*Dalbrow, *post,*April 1st, 1836.
# C_2013141EN.01001403.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 28 February 2013 — Guy Kleynen v Council of Ministers

(Case C-99/13)

2013/C 141/25

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Guy Kleynen

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of Ministers

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 36 and 41 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing and maintaining a system of higher taxation of the interest paid by non-resident banks through the application of a tax exemption or a lower tax rate solely to the interest paid by Belgian banks?

---
No. 40578.

#### Protests 702683-G, etc., of Acheson Harden Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Jay Willfred Co. *v.*United States

No. 7907.

Entry Nos. 724737; 769589.

(Decided November 13, 1950)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation *457of such, merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### B. Klinghoffer & Son et al. *v.*United States

No. 6924.

Entry No. 702785, etc.

Invoices dated Lancaster, England, May 19, 1941, etc.

Certified May 21, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 11, 1941, etc.

(Decided February 26, 1947)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section-402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be .the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

# DDSI celebrates workforce with Family Day

DLA Distribution Public Affairs

                SIGONELLA, Italy  –              DLA Distribution Sigonella, Italy, celebrated its local culture and the yearlong efforts of its workforce with a Family Day.  More than 150 employees and family members attended the event which featured food and entertainment.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADLA DistributionDistributionDLA Distribution Sigonella ItalyPeople and CultureFamily Day
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunnyside Acres Mobile Estates
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stacy Pierson, Secretary and Treasurer 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, to my knowledge:

     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: October 16, 2007



                                        By: /s/ STACEY PIERSON
                                            ___________________________
                                                Stacey Pierson
                                                Secretary and Treasurer
# C_2013009EN.01003802.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/38

---

Action brought on 25 October 2012 — Tridium v OHIM — q-bus Mediatektur (SEDONA FRAMEWORK)

(Case T-467/12)

2013/C 9/70

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tridium, Inc. (Richmond, Unites States) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: q-bus Mediatektur GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2012 in case R 1943/2011-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2012 in case R 1943/2011-2; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SEDONA FRAMEWORK’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 9067372

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 934023 of the figurative mark ‘~sedna’, for goods in class 9

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---