alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9830]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Fossil Energy; National Coal Council; Notice of Open 
Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the National Coal Council. 
The purpose of this meeting is to provide the Secretary of Energy with 
the report which he requested on June 26, 2006. This report is titled 
``Technology Based Framework for Mitigating Greenhouse Gases from Coal- 
Based Electricity Plants.'' Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, 86 Stat. 770) requires notice of these meetings be announced in 
the Federal Register.

DATES: June 7, 2007, 9 a.m. to 12 Noon.

ADDRESSES: Fairmont Hotel, 2401 M St., NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Kane, Phone (202) 586-4753, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, DC 
20585.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the National Coal Council 
is to provide advice, information, and recommendation to the Secretary 
of Energy on matters relating to coal and coal industry issues:
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The Chair 
of the NCC will conduct the meeting to facility orderly business. If 
you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may 
do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make 
oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should 
contact Mr. Robert Kane at the address and telephone number listed 
above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five 
business days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be 
made to include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will 
follow the 10-minute rule.
    Minutes: The minutes will be available for public review and 
copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading 
Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 17, 2007.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-9830 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
# C_2014315EN.01001102.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Wedl & Hofmann GmbH

(Case C-141/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark Walzer Traum - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark Walzertraum - Concept of genuine use of the mark - Failure to take earlier decisions into account - Principle of equal treatment))

2014/C 315/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), Wedl & Hofmann GmbH (represented by: T. Raubal, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties 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 Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

1

---
SAT ReportPMN Number:P-13-0237SAT Date:3/15/2013Print Date:8/30/2013Related cases:Health related cases:Ecotox related cases:Concern levels:Type of Concern:HealthEcoCommentsLevel of Concern:23PersistenceBioaccumToxicityComments1 22Exposure Based Review:Health:NoEcotox:YesRoutes of exposure:Health:Dermal Drinking Water InhalationEcotox:All releases to waterFate:;Keywords:Keywords:IRR;NEURO; LUNG; ONCO; IMMUNOTOX; SENS; LIVER; BLOOD; AQUATOXSummary of Assessment:Fate:Fate Summary:P-13-0237FATE: Estimations for typical limonene MW 136 C10H16Liquid with MP = -42 C (M for mixture), -95 °C (M for limonene)log Kow = 4.57 (M for limonene)S = 7.57 mg/L at 25 C (M for limonene)VP = 1.55 torr at 25 C (M for limonene)BP = 176 C (M for limonene)H = 3.19E-2 (E)log Koc = 3.05 (E)log Fish BCF = 2.68 (E)log Fish BAF = 3.07 (E)POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption, stripping and biodegTime for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wkSorption to soils/sediments = moderateVolatilization half-life from a standard river = 1 hrsVolatilization half-life from a standard lake = 5 daAtmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 0.89 hr via OH radicalAtmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 0.62 hr via ozonePBT Potential: P1B2*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = moderateHealth:Health Summary:Absorbed all routes (analog). The mixture of hydrocarbons making up this PMN substancecontains 6% benzene. Concern for solvent irritation, solvent neurotoxicity, and chemical pneumonia based on hydrocarbons. Concernsfor benzene are oncogenicity, immunotoxicity, and liver and blood toxicity. Also concern for oncogenicity based on naphthalene(<2%) and dermal sensitization based on limonene (13%).Ecotox:Test OrganismTest TypeTest End PointPredictedMeasuredCommentsfish96-hLC500.32daphnid48-hLC500.24green algal96-hEC500.52fish_chronic value0.043daphnid_chronic value0.048algal_chronic value0.24Sewage Sludge3-hEC50_Sewage Sludge_Chronic Value_Ecotox Values Comments:Predictions are based on SARs for neutral organic chemicals; SAR chemical class = hydrocarbons;MW 136 (representative structure); log Kow = 4.82 (EPI); liquid with mp = -42 C (M); S = 7.57 mg/L at 20 C (P);pH7; effectiveconcentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; DWhardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; andDWTOC <2.0 mg/L;FactorsValuesCommentsAssessment Factor10Concentration of Concern (ppb)4SARsneutral organic chemicalsSAR ClasshydrocarbonEcotox CategoryNeutral OrganicsEcotox Factors Comments:SAT Chair:L Keifer 564-8916
#### WALN v. FREEDLAND.

November 25, 1837.

*Exceptions to the return of a commission to take depositions.*

1. Commissioners to take depositions of witnesses in another state, returned to the commission, “the execution of this commission appears by the schedule hereunto annexed,” signed with their names, but not affixing a seal to them ; and the envelope had two seals, with the name only of one commissioner. *Held,*to be irregular, and the depositions cannot be read in evidence.

2. In such case, where the defect is the result of inadvertence, the court will order the commission to be returned to be re-executed.

IN this case, a commission issued to New York to take the depositions of witnesses, at the instance of the defendant, each party naming a commissioner, both of whom attended to the execution of the commission. The usual endorsement was on the margin of each sheet of paper, containing the depositions, of the names of both commissioners, and there was the usual return, “ the execution of this commission appears by the schedule hereunto annexed,” which was signed by both commissioners, but without seal by either. The depositions were put under an envelope which had two seals, but the name of *one*commissioner only was written over both seals.

Exceptions were filed to the sufficiency of the execution and return of this commission, under the 90th rule of this court, (1 *Miles*459,) alleging that, 1. The return was not under the seals of the commissioners; 2. The envelope was not endorsed under the seals of both of them.

*Wain,*for the exceptions.

*Tyson,*contra.

*162Per Curiam.—

The commissioners are officers of the court, and the commission is a grant of its power to record the evidence according to rules established by long practice. These rules are intended for the safety of the parties, who are generally at a distance from the place where the depositions are taken. The court have always required certain forms to be complied with, all having relation to the utmost precaution to be used on the part of the commissioners, to verify the faithful execution of the commission. The union of the commissioners in sealing the return, and in endorsing the seals on the envelope, tend to prevent mistake, accident, or fraud. At the same time, where the error is most probably the result of inadvertence, the court will not put the parties to unnecessary expense. It is therefore ordered that the commission, and all the proceedings of the commissioners, or either of them, under it, be returned to the commissioners, with instructions to make a full return, after a re-examination of the defendant’s witnesses, upon notice to the plaintiff.

Decree accordingly.a

a

*Vide*New York State Bank *v.*Western Bank, in this volume.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****CTD/O****₂****measurements during the EquatorialPacific Ocean Climate Study (EPOCS) in ... [electronic resource].**
 
1979 | 1989-90
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.36/2:
Item Number:0250-E-49 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000678102
 
September 27, 2018
Before the Second Division,

October 27, 1943

No. 48925.

#### Protests 888862-G, etc., of Eurasia Import Co. (New York)

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of hats or hoods in chief value of ramie similar to those involved in Abstract 47291. The. claim at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was therefore sustained as to these items.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2214 

To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, 

Accomack County, Virginia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2012 

Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. WEBB) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

A BILL 

To remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in 

the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS. 

4 (a) REMOVAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 

6 shall execute such instruments as may be necessary to re7 move all deed restrictions described in subsection (b) relat8 ing to the parcel of land described in subsection (c). 

9 (b) DEED RESTRICTIONS.—The deed restrictions re10 ferred to in subsection (a) are those restrictions, including 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2214 IS

1 easements, exceptions, reservations, terms, conditions, and 

2 covenants described in Quitclaim Deed No. 17808A from 

3 the United States to Accomack County, Virginia, executed 

4 on December 20, 1976, and recorded among the real es5 tate records of Accomack County, Virginia, by the Clerk 

6 of the Circuit Court, on pages 292 through 296 of Deed 

7 Book 381. 

8 (c) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcel of land re9 ferred to in subsection (a) consists of approximately 31.6 

10 acres situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, 

11 Virginia, more particularly described in the metes and 

12 bounds description recorded on page 292 of the quitclaim 

13 deed described in subsection (b). 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Ann Shoemaker CORBIN, Appellant, v. William C. EVANS, Jr., Appellee.

No. EE-120.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 1977.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1977.

Anderson E. Hatfield, III, Gainesville, for appellant.

L. William Graham of Dell, Graham, Willcox, Barber, Rappenecker, Ryals & Henderson, Gainesville, for appellee.

*1315PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the complaint and to proceed thereafter in accordance with law. See *Evans v. Corbin,*Fla.App., 343 So.2d 1314, opinion issued March 25, 1976.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Accessing talent: thefoundation of a U.S. Army Officer Corps strategy**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:D 101.146/21:4
Item Number:0307-A-94 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000665596
 
October 16, 2018
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Cyber Digital, Inc. (the "Company")on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.C.Chatpar, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-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 result of operations of theCompany.  
/s/ J.C. Chatpar
  J.C. Chatpar  Chief Executive Officer and   Chief Financial Officer  June 27, 2006
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60188 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ERIC TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:03-CR-136-1

-------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eric Tucker pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact of armed robbery and was sentenced to serve 46 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Tucker now appeals his sentence. He contends that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines and that his sentence is contrary to United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). These arguments are unavailing. See United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.),No. 05-60188 -2- cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005); United States v. Burton , 126 F.3d 666, 669, 679 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Harris , 104 F.3d 1465, 1474-75 (5th Cir. 1997). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### The Board of Education of the School District of The City of Cincinnati *v.*McHenry, Jr., etc.

*Negligence*— Liability—Board *of education*— Pupil *injured by dentist employed by board.*

(No. 16990

Decided December 29, 1922.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county-

*Mr. Saul Zielonha,*city solicitor, and *Mr. Harry R. Weber,*assistant city solicitor, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Theodore Horstman,*for defendant in error.

By the Court-

This action was brought to recover damages claimed to have been sustained by a pupil in the public schools of the city of Cincinnati from the extraction of a tooth by a dentist, in the employment of the board of education of the city of Cincinnati, to whom the principal of one of the public schools of the city required the pupil to submit himself for examination and treatment without the consent or knowledge of his parents.

The petition averred “that said dentist, or pretended dentist, who was in the employ of defendant and authorized by defendant to operate upon said William McHenry, Jr., was negligent in fracturing the jaw bone of said William McHenry, Jr.; that said dentist, or pretended dentist, was incompetent to operate * * * and that he was incompetent to determine whether or not the jaw bone of his patient *358had been fractured or to treat the same if fractured, and that defendant was negligent in employing for such work an unfit and incompetent person.”

The court of common pleas sustained a demurrer to the petition, and upon proceeding in error that judgment was reversed by the court of appeals. Thereupon error was prosecuted to this court.

It was conceded by counsel for defendant in error, upon the argument in this court, that unless the recent decision of the supreme court of Ohio, in *Fowler, Admx.,*v. *City of Cleveland,*100 Ohio St., 158, changes the rule of law prevailing in this state prior to such decision, no recovery can be had in this cause against the board of education, and the action of the court of appeals was based upon the decision of this court in that case.

The decision of this court in the case of *Aldrich*v. *City of Youngstown,*ante, 342, wherein the decision in the *Fowler case, supra,*was overruled, requires in the instant case a reversal of the judgment of the court of appeals and an affirmance of that of the court of common pleas.

*Judgment reversed.*

Marshall, C. J., Hough, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Clark, JJ., concur.
#### Otis CESARIO et al. v. Bob DAWSON d/b/a Friendship Homes.

No. 11496.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

May 9, 1977.

A. L. Carbonette, Baton Rouge, for appellants.

Joel B. Dickinson, Baton Rouge, for ap-pellee.

Before ELLIS, CHIASSON and PONDER, JJ.

PONDER, Judge.

This case is before us on a rule to show cause why defendant’s appeal should not be dismissed because the bond was not timely filed.

A judgment in favor of the plaintiff was signed on November 30, 1976. The defendant made a timely application for a new trial, which was denied on December 17,1976. The motion and order for a devol-utive appeal was filed on February 2, 1977, but the appeal bond was not filed until March 28, 1977.

The appeal must be dismissed.

LSA-C.C.P. Article 2087 as amended by Act 201 of 1976 states in part:

> “Except as otherwise provided in this article or by other law, an appeal which does not suspend the effect or the execution of an appealable order or judgment may be taken, and the security therefor furnished, within sixty days after:

> (2) the court’s refusal to grant a timely application for a new trial, if the applicant is not entitled to notice of such refusal under Article 1914; ”

The order of appeal and the appeal bond must be filed within the sixty day period *1271allowed by Article 2087. *Master Builders of Slidell, Inc. v. Adams,*342 So.2d 1169 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1977). Because the bond was not timely filed, this court is without jurisdiction. LSA-C.C.P. Article 2088.

Defendant claims that Article 2087 as amended is in violation of Article 1 Sections 19 and 221 of the Constitution of 1974. This contention was disposed of in *Something Irish Co. v. Rack,*333 So.2d 773 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976). We adopt the reasoning of the court in that case.

This appeal is therefore dismissed at defendant’s cost.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

1

. Article 1 Section 19. Right to Judicial Review

> “No person shall be subjected to imprisonment or forfeiture of rights or property without the right of judicial review based upon a complete record of all evidence upon which the 'judgment is based. This right may be intelligently waived. The cost of transcribing the record shall be paid as provided by law.”

Article 1 Section 22. Access to Courts

> “All courts shall be open, and every person shall have an adequate remedy by due process of law and justice, administered without denial, partiality, or unreasonable delay, for injury to him in his person, property, reputation, or other rights.”
#### United States *v.*Indianapolis Bleaching Co.

No. 5971.

Invoices dated Modoc, Ontario, June 5, 1941, etc.

Certified June 6, 1941, etc.

Entered at Indianapolis, Ind., June 12, 1941, etc.

Entry No. 181, etc.

(Decided January 4, 1944)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Ausier,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Eicwall, Judge:

A quantity of what is described as ground talc, grade 3-A, was imported at the port of Indianapolis, Ind. It was invoiced and entered at $8 per ton Canadian currency and was appraised as entered. From this valuation the' collector of customs at the port of entry filed appeals to reappraisement. Said appeals have been submitted for decision on the' following stipulation:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the court, that at the time of exportation of the grade 3-A ground talc involved herein, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all pur*349chasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of 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, at $9 United States currency, per ton, packed.

> It is further stipulated and agreed, that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein, at the time of exportation thereof and that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

In view of this stipulation I find that export value as such value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 is the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise, and that such value is $9 United States currency, per ton, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.