alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An equal opportunity employer 1220 L Street, Northwest Russell White

Washington, DC 20005

- 4070 Health Sciences Manager

Tel 202

- 682

- 8344

Fax 202

- 682

- 8270

whiter@api.org

May 2 5 , 2012

Byron J. Bunker,

Acting Division Director

Compliance Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency 2000 Traverwood

Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation:

2 nd Draft Final Report Gasoline TBA Vapor Condensate : A 13

- W eek W hole

- B ody

I nhalation T oxicity S tudy I n R ats W ith N eurotoxicity A ssessments and 4

- W eek I n

Vivo G enotoxicity A nd I mmunotoxicity A ssessments ( HLS Study NO. 00

- 6131 )

Dear Mr. Bunker :

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG),

is submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b)

Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation:

 2 nd Draft Final Report Gasoline TBA Vapor Condensa te: A 13

- Week Whole

- Body

Inhalation Toxicity Study In Rats With Neurotoxicity Assessments and 4

- Week In

Vivo Genotoxicity And Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study NO. 00

- 6131 )

 The study director’s response to comments from EPA, the two peer

- reviewers, a n

inde pendent quality assurance (QA) auditor , and the RG ( Five Checklist s May 25

, 2012 )

The RG believes the 2 nd draft is ready for final review by EPA as all significant comments have

been addressed by the study director in this version. However, the RG wants to point out the

following issues.

Upon reviewing the study director’s response to QA comments, the auditor had the following

additional comments;

1. The QA report from the GFAP contractor should be taken out as it will not be completed.

2. Two footnotes from Appendix K still need to be removed (comment 36 and 37)

. 3. Appendices X, Y, Z, and AA need to be labele d as such.

The RG believes that none of these issue s compromise the interpretation of the results and will

confirm they a re corrected in the final report

.

If you require further information or have any questions regarding this submission, please

contact me.May 25, 2012

Regards,

Russell D. White

Enclosures on CD : 1) 2 nd Draft Final Report Gasoline TBA Vapor Condensate: A 13

- Week

Whole

- Body Inhalation Toxicity Study In Rats With Neurotoxicity

Assessments and 4

- Week In Vivo Genotoxicity And Immunotoxicity

Assessments (HLS Study NO. 00

- 613 1 )

2) HLS 00

- 6131 TBA subchronic_FOB_MA_neurotox_checklist May 25

2012

3) HLS 00

- 6131 TBA SCE checklist May 25 2012

4) HLS 00

- 6131 TBA Micronucleus checklist May 25 2012

5) HLS 00

- 6131 TBA Immunotox checklist May 25 2012

6) HLS 00

- 6131 TBA GFAP checklist response May 25 2012

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
**EXHIBIT 12.2**

 

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Kin Shek Leung, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A - 1 of Global-Tech Appliances Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report. 

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

 

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

(c) Disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered bythis Annual Report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theCompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 23, 2005
# C_2013141EN.01001002.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 31 January 2013 — Nationale-Nederlanden Levensverzekering Mij NV v Hubertus Wilhelmus Van Leeuwen

(Case C-51/13)

2013/C 141/17

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Rotterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nationale-Nederlanden Levensverzekering Mij NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Hubertus Wilhelmus Van Leeuwen

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does European Union law, and in particular Article 31(3) of the Third Life Assurance Directive, (1) preclude an obligation on the part of a life assurance provider on the basis of the ‘open’ and/or unwritten rules of Netherlands law — such as the reasonableness and fairness which govern the (pre-)contractual relationship between a life assurance provider and a prospective policyholder, and/or a general and/or specific duty of care — to provide policyholders with more information on costs and risk premiums of the insurance than was prescribed in 1999 by the provisions of Netherlands law by which the Third Life Assurance Directive was implemented (in particular, Article 12(2)(q) and (r) of the RIAV [(Netherlands Regulation regarding the provision of information to policyholders)] 1998)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does European Union law, and in particular Article 31(3) of the Third Life Assurance Directive, (1) preclude an obligation on the part of a life assurance provider on the basis of the ‘open’ and/or unwritten rules of Netherlands law — such as the reasonableness and fairness which govern the (pre-)contractual relationship between a life assurance provider and a prospective policyholder, and/or a general and/or specific duty of care — to provide policyholders with more information on costs and risk premiums of the insurance than was prescribed in 1999 by the provisions of Netherlands law by which the Third Life Assurance Directive was implemented (in particular, Article 12(2)(q) and (r) of the RIAV [(Netherlands Regulation regarding the provision of information to policyholders)] 1998)?

1

| 2. | Are the consequences, or possible consequences, under Netherlands law, of a failure to provide that information relevant for the purposes of answering question 1? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are the consequences, or possible consequences, under Netherlands law, of a failure to provide that information relevant for the purposes of answering question 1?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

1

---
#### Yanick CHARLES, et al., Appellants, v. BISCAYNE BUILDERS, INC., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 98-150, 97-3096.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

Adorno & Zeder, Raoul G. Cantero, III, Coconut Grove, and Jonathan D. Colan, Miami, for appellants.

Paxton, Crow, Bragg, Smith & Nelson and Michele I. Nelson, West Palm Beach, for appellees Dade Truss Company, Inc., and Salvador Jurado.

Cole, White & Billbrough and Geoffrey B. Marks, Miami, for appellees Mehmet Y. liter, B.K.M. East, Inc., and Ibbid Investments of Florida, Inc.

John H. Lipinski, Hollywood, for appellee Superior Truss Systems, Inc.

DiBartolomeo & DiBartolomeo and Dean F. DiBartolomeo, Miami, for appellee Arthur Perrin.

Before LEVY, GODERICH and FLETCHER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Based on the authority of *Litwinski v. Weitzer Country Homes, Inc.,*711 So.2d 1390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), we reverse the trial court’s orders vacating the extension of time for service of process and dismissing the plaintiffs’ ease for failure to timely effectuate service of process. We find that the plaintiffs asserted reasonable grounds for the extension of time before the 120 days for service had expired, *Litwinski,*711 So.2d at 1392; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b)(1), and note that the trial court did not have the benefit of *Litunnski*at the time of its decision.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
EXHIBIT 32.a

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 Quarterly Report of Morgan Beaumont, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Clifford Wildes, in my capacity as Chief Executive 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. 

 
|   |  

Date: June 2, 2006 |  

*/s/ Clifford Wildes***            |
|--------|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                       | Clifford Wildes, Chief Executive Officer** |
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 229 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require labeling 

of genetically-engineered fish. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2011 

Mr. BEGICH (for himself, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, and Mr. WYDEN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

require labeling of genetically-engineered fish. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, 

4 AND COSMETIC ACT REGARDING GENETI5 CALLY-ENGINEERED SALMON. 

6 Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

7 Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by adding at the end the 

8 following: 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 229 IS

1 ‘‘(z) If it contains genetically-engineered fish unless 

2 the food bears a label stating that fact.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 8100.

Entry No. 622.

*583(Decided March 11, 1952)

*Sharretts, Hillis, & Paley (Howard C. Carter*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, that the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the earthenware articles covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated on schedule “A” hereto attached and made part hereof, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was in each instance the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the Appraiser in similar eases and that there is no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that this appeal to reap-praisement be submitted on this 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 earthenware articles here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report of Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Alan L. Wells, President and Chief Executive 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 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Alan L. WellsAlan L. WellsPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)August 12, 2005




38
First Issue dated 24 April 2015 Page 1 of 2 vulcanair spa

via g. pascoli, 7

80026 casoria (na)

– italia

Tel +39 081 5918111

Fax +39 081 5918172

info@vulcanair.com

www.vulcanair.com 

## P

. 68 VARIANTS

Approved by the Vulcanair Design Organisation

The technical content of this document is approved unde r the authority of DOA No. EASA.21J.009

. Operator obligations with regards to inspections, modifications and/or other technical directives and their times of

compliance are laid out in the relative Airworthiness Directives

.



## SERVICE BULLETIN



## No. 2 44

Design Organisation Approval No. AS

- SB/1 5 /0 06 dated 27 April 201 5



### MANDATORY

SUBJECT: AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL CHANGE

1. GENERAL

1.1 AIRCRAFT AFFECTED

P.68 R aircraft up to s/n 480

.



### 1.2 PURPOSE

T his Service Bulletin has b een issued to give mandatory action to replace the applicable

Aircraft Flight Manual with its latest revision including the changes related to the AEO

Rate of Climb (ROC) performance which were over

- estimated by approximately 30% in

the previous revisions of the AFM

.



### 1.3 DESCRIPTION

New flight tests have demonstrated that the AEO ROC performance are different from

those declared and published in the current revision of ap plicable Aircraft Flight Manual,

both for MTOW of 1960 kg and 2063 kg.

This Service Bulletin introduces a n ew revision of the Aircraft Flight Manual s for P.68R

variant as a consequence of the correction of the above over

- estimation of AEO ROC data

.



### 1.4 COMPLIANCE

Within 15 May 2015.**Vulcanair S.p.A. Service Bulletin No.**  **244**

First Issue dated 24 April 2015 Page 2 of 2 

### 1. GENERAL (Cont.)

1.5 TIME REQUIRED

Negligible.



### 1.6 SPECIAL T OOLS

No special tool is required.



### 1.7 VARIATION IN WEIGHT & BALANCE

N ot Applicable

.



### 1.8 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM LOAD

Not Applicable.



### 1.9 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

Applicable Aircraft Flight Manual

.



### 1.10 PUBLICATIONS AFFECTED

NOR 10.707

- 30 (AFM P.68R s/n 40)

NOR10.707

- 30B (AFM P.68R s/n 430)

NOR10.707

- 30C (AFM P.68R from s/n 453 onwards)



### 1.11 APPLICATION TO BE CARRIED OUT BY

Aircraft Owner/Operator



### 2 . WORK PROCEDURE

1. Consult Vulcanair website www.vulcanair.com

2. Download free of charge the applicable Aircraft Flight M anual revision as below

described:

NOR10.707

- 30 rev.2 for P.68R s/n 40

NOR10.707

- 30B rev.19 for P.68R s/n 430

NOR10.707

- 30C rev.27 for P.68R from s/n 453 onwards

Alternatively, contact Vulcanair Parts Dept. at parts@vulcanair.com to request a paper

copy.

3. I nsert the revised pages in the Aircraft Flight Manual currently in use on the airplane.
House Lease Agreement


House Lease Agreement

No: Vitup House Lease Agreement 2004-0988







Party A (Lessor): Shubin Wang 

ID Card No: 220622196506270630

Address: No. 10-1-3-2 (03), Ming Ze Yuan, Dalian City, China




Party B (Lessee): Dalian Vitup Healthcare Management Co., Ltd

Address: No. 108-1, 108-2, Nanshan Road, Zhongshan District, Dalian




Whereas




Party A is willing to lease and Party B agrees to rent the house located at No. 10-1-3-2 (03), Ming Ze Yuan, Dalian City, China.




Now therefore, both Party A and Party B have reached an agreement regarding to the abovementioned lease matter with terms and conditions as follows:




1

The house situated at No. 10-1-3-2 (03), Ming Ze Yuan, Dalian City, China and with a floor space of 1230.94 square meters constitutes a three-tier frame-structured building (Hereinafter referred to as the “House”) and is owned by Party A.




2

Party A agrees to lease the House to Party B for use as an office for business operation. The annual rental is RMB 100,000, and each year’s rental shall be settled by the end of that year. However, subject to a specific circumstance, Party A may collect the next year’s rental in advance.




3

Both Party A and Party B agree that the lease term is fifteen years, commencing from the date of the execution of the House Lease Agreement herein.




4

During the term of this Agreement, the two parties herein agree to adjust the rental of the House once every two years through consultation according to the then-current real estate market situation and business operation conditions of Party B.




5

Upon the execution of this Agreement, the leased House shall be delivered for occupation by Party B, and all taxes, expenses or other relevant charges arising from the lease, occupation and use of the House shall be born by Party B.




6

Both Party A and Party B shall bear the responsibility to observe the terms and conditions set forth above. In case that any party breach the agreement, the other party is entitled to file a civil lawsuit to any court that has jurisdiction for indemnification for economic losses.




7

This Agreement takes effect from the date of signature by the two parties herein. The 






Agreement is made in quadruplicate; each party holds one and the others are submitted to relevant government departments for filing and recording purpose. All originals shall have the same legal effect.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the two parties have cause this House Lease Agreement to be executed by their respective authorized representatives as of the date hereinblow written.
















Party A: Wang Shubin







Signature:                         
















Party B: Dalian Vitup Healthcare Management Co., Ltd







Signature:                         













Date: January 12, 2004
Case No. 6,659.

#### In re GRAHAM.

[8 Ben. 419] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

May, 1876.

Witness — Bbivilege—Crimination.

It having been testified in bankruptcy proceedings, that the bankrupt had lost a large sum of money, a short time before his bankruptcy, in a gambling-house kept by B. and M. at Ño. 16 West 24th street, New York. B. and M. were summoned to appear before the register for examination. The question was put to B.: “What year was it you removed from No. 16 West 24th street?”’ B. refused to answer, on the ground that the answer to the question would tend to criminate him. The question was put to M.: “Did you ever reside at No. 16 West 24th street?” M. refused to answer on the same ground: *Held,*that the witnesses were privileged from answering the questions.

[Cited in U. S. v. M’Carthy, 18 Fed. 88.]

In this case the register certified that a witness had testified before him that one Samuel E. Briggs and one Charles N. Moody were the keepers of a gambling-house at No. 16 West 24th street, in the city of New York; that the above named bankrupt [William M. Graham] had lost at gaming, in said house, over 830,000, which he had paid to Briggs and Moody a short time before the adjudication of bankruptcy; that thereafter a summons was issued by the register requiring Briggs and Moody to come before him for examination; and that, they -having been *914sworn, the following question was put to the witness Briggs: “"What year was it you removed from No. 16 West 24th street?” who answered, that, from the previous examination of witnesses, he perceived that he was charged with participation in a gambling transaction, which, if true, exposed him to a criminal prosecution under the laws of the state of New York, and he declined to answer any question on the subject, on the ground that the answer to the question now put might tend to expose him to such criminal prosecution and criminate him. The register further certified, that the following question was put to the witness Moody: “Did you ever reside at No. 16 West 24th street?” that he made the same answer as the witness Briggs; and that the register thereupon, on request, certified to the court the question, whether the witnesses should answer, with his opinion that the witnesses should be required to answer the questions.

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

I think that the witnesses were privileged from answering the questions.
No. 43288.

#### Protest 90446-G of Grande Maison de Blanc, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of Normandy lace like that the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.