alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Newborn Screening Translational Research Network (NBSTRN) August 13, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6680,                         *skandasa@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 13, 2018.

Ronald J. Livingston, Jr.,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-15357 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### ELMER CANDY CORPORATION v. Cecil C. BARNES, Individually and Orlando S. Cortes, Individually, d/b/a the Gloen Company.

No. 5365.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 21, 1973.

Sydney J. Parlongue and Philip R. Rie-gel, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Francis J. Demarest, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and SCHOTT, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the rejection of its demand as against defendant Cortes for damages for breach of a demolition contract between plaintiff and defendant Barnes. We affirm.

Cortes, “doing business as The Gloen Company”, had purchased a defunct ice plant’s refrigeration equipment and contracted with Barnes, dba Cajun Construction Company, to dismantle it for $12,000. The ice plant land and buildings were thereafter bought by plaintiff, who contracted with “Barnes dba The Gloen Company” (sic), for demolition of the buildings for no payment except salvaged materials. Barnes’s default on the latter contract obliged plaintiff to complete it at a cost of $11,500.

“The Gloen Company” has been Cortes’s trade name since 1961, always employed in export-import of machinery, and never in construction or demolition.

Plaintiff’s theory is that Barnes was either Cortes’s partner (actually or by estop-pel) or Cortes’s apparent agent.

Plaintiff’s evidence was in part explained and in part directly contradicted by Cortes.

The payment by Cortes of Barnes’s laborers (while Barnes was apparently performing both contracts) was reasonably explained as an agreed method of making progress payments to Barnes, all such salary payments being charged against the Cortes-Barnes contract price.

The only testimony of Cortes having entered into the demolition contract negotiations came from an officer of plaintiff. Cortes contradicted this testimony (“I heard his testimony * * * and he is a liar, so help me God”).

*590We conclude that the insuperable obstacle to the claim against Cortes is that plaintiff’s written contract was with “Barnes, dba The Gloen Company.” It was not even with “The Gloen Company by Barnes,” much less “Cortes & Barnes by Barnes” or “Cortes by Barnes”. Since Barnes did not, in his contract, purport to act for or represent anyone but himself individually (though falsely claiming to do business [individually] under a trade name), discussion of partnership by estop-pel (especially if an *ordinary*partnership, see C.C. art. 2872) and of apparent agency is unnecessary.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Anthony CRANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-253.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 1, 1971.

Robert L. Wilson, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. McNeely v. State (Fla.App.1966), 186 So.2d 520; Brill v. State (1947), 159 Fla. 682, 32 So.2d 607.

CARROLL, DONALD IC., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### The FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Edward ZEMBA, individually and as father and next friend of Gary Zemba, a minor, Appellees.

No. 70-103.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 10, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023104EN.01002702.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2023 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)

(Case T-565/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Papouis Halloumi - Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 104/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Milbradt, lawyer, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Papouis Dairies Ltd (Nicosia) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 April 2021 (Case R 575/2019-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Papouis Dairies Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Papouis Dairies Ltd.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.

---
September 17, 2015

Mr. Robert P. Ivers

Velocity Business Solutions

9064 Terwilligers Ridge Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45249

Dear Mr. Ivers :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your June 10, 2015

, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2758

, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps ans wer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 da ys before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
Exhibit 10.16


 


Spousal Consent


 


I, [   ] (ID Number: [  
]), is the legal spouse of [   ](ID number : [   ]). I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree on December 18,
2020 that sign the following documents (hereinafter referred to as "reorganization documents") on December 18, 2020
and agree to dispose the shareholding of Beijing Wimi Cloud Software Co., Ltd held by and registered under [   ]:


 


		1.	Share Pledge Agreement signed with Beijing Hologram Wimi Cloud Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereafter
referred to as “WFOE”), the domestic company and other shareholders of the domestic company;



 


		2.	Exclusive Option Agreement signed with WFOE, the domestic company and other shareholders of the
domestic company;



 


		3.	Power of Attorney signed with WFOE.



 


I undertake that I
won’t claim any rights regarding [   ]’s shareholding of the domestic company. I further confirm that [
  ]'s execution of the reorganization documents and further modification or termination of the reorganization documents
do not require my additional authorization or consent.


 


I undertake to sign
all necessary documents and to take all necessary actions to ensure that the reorganization documents (as amended from time to
time) will be properly implemented.


 


I agree and
undertake, if I obtain, for any reason, any shareholding interest in the domestic company held by [   ], I shall be
bound by the reorganization documents (as amended from times to time) and comply with the obligations as the shareholder of
the domestic company under the reorganization documents (as amended from times to time) and, for that purpose, once the WFOE
makes any request, I shall sign a series of written documents with the similar format and content as the reorganization
documents (as amended from time to time).


 


(Below is left blank intentionally)





 


(Below is the signature page)


 


Promisor:


 


Signature:
251 La. 68

#### AMERICAN TILE & TERRAZZO COMPANY v. Edward H. KEILER.

No. 48877.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1967.

In re: Edward H. Keiler applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 200 So.2d 350.

Not considered. Not timely filed.
EXHIBIT NO. 15





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Gerber Scientific, Inc.


            Re: Registration Statements on Form S-8,
                File No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668,
                No. 333-261777, and No. 333-42879,
                No. 33-81447, and No. 333-83463

                Registration Statement on Form S-3,
                File No. 33-58670


With   respect   to  the  subject  Registration  Statements,   we
acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report  dated
February  16,  2000  related to our review of  interim  financial
information.

Pursuant  to  Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, such  reports
are not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or
certified  by an accountant or a report prepared or certified  by
an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.





/ s / KPMG LLP


KPMG LLP




Hartford, Connecticut
March 3, 2000
#### POLASKI *v.*DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION

[App. No. 28,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided October 11, 1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, HornEy, Marbury and SybeRT, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Application for leave to appeal from an order recommitting petitioner to Patuxent Institution, after a finding that he was still a defective delinquent, must be denied for the reason that the petitioner filed no specification of errors as required by Maryland Rule 894. *Perkerson v. Director,*226 Md. 666, 174 A. 2d 436.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 Quarterly Report of Golden Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended December 2, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Patty Townsend, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of 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.

Dated:   January 11, 2006



/s/ Patty Townsend
------------------
Patty Townsend
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon
request.



                                       25
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 Nos. 33-36208, 33-47891, 33-58872, 33-81994, 333-00877, 333-05077,
333-21833, 333-46455 and 333-71977) pertaining to the 1988 Stock Option Plan,
1995 Stock Option Plan, 1995 Outside Directors Stock Plan, 1996 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, certain stock option agreements issued in connection with the
acquisition of Virtual Machine Works, Inc., and certain individual employee
stock option agreements of IKOS Systems, Inc. of our report dated October 21,
1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
IKOS Systems, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended October 2, 1999.

                                          Ernst & Young LLP

San Jose, California
December 17, 1999
Exhibit 31.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 I, Mary G. Merritt, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Preferred Voice, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.
 
 4. The registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. The registrant'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.
 
  /s/ Mary G. Merritt
 Mary G. Merritt
 Vice President Finance
 (Principal Financial Officer)
 February 14, 2005
#### Dale Leigh ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-186.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 24, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 Sierra Health Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony M. Marlon, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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/ Anthony M. Marlon, M.D.		**		**	

Anthony M. Marlon, M.D.					

Chief Executive Officer

August 15, 2003**	**
#### Ruddys Angel PIMENTAL-ROMERO, etc., Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 91-1942.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Oct. 17, 1991.

Before CAMPBELL, TORRUELLA and SELYA, Circuit Judges.

ORDER OF COURT

As both parties agree, the instant petition for review must be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because it was not timely filed. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(l) (Supp.1991), an alien convicted of an “aggravated felony,” as petitioner here has been, must file any petition for review not later than 30 days after issuance of the “final deportation order.” The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), in a decision dated August 8, 1991, rejected petitioner’s application for discretionary waiver and dismissed his appeal. And in a notice dated August 29, 1991, the agency notified petitioner of the date on which he was to be deported. Petitioner filed the instant petition on September 19, 1991 — 21 days after the agency notice but 42 days after the BIA’s decision. He now concedes that the decision of the BIA, rather than the subsequent agency notice, constitutes the “final deportation order.” *See, e.g., Athehortua-Vanegas v. INS,*876 F.2d 238, 240 (1st Cir.1989) (BIA’s dismissal of appeal is final order); *Garcia v. INS,*690 F.2d 349, 350-51 (3d Cir.1982) (notice of deportation date is not final order); *Balas v. INS,*518 F.2d 1179, 1180 (7th Cir.1975) (same) (per curiam). As compliance with the statutory filing period is a jurisdictional prerequisite, *see, e.g., Nocon v. INS,*789 F.2d 1028, 1030-33 (3d Cir.1986); *Lee v. INS,*685 F.2d 343 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam), the appeal must be dismissed.

While agreeing with such disposition, petitioner also suggests, somewhat paradoxically, that the agency is required as a matter of due process to notify litigants of the time limits for seeking judicial review. Yet he offers no support for this assertion. And we find no basis for such an across-the-board requirement — at least where, as here, no such duty is imposed on the agency by statute or regulation. In addition, petitioner suggests that the “newness” of the statute should militate in favor of lenient treatment. Yet the 1990 amendment only altered the filing period; *565it did not revise the definition of “final deportation order.”

We might finally note that, based on our preliminary review of the record, petitioner appears to have had a negligible chance of prevailing on the merits. A denial of discretionary waiver will be upheld “unless it was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.” *Williams v. INS,*773 F.2d 8, 9 (1st Cir.1985). Our conclusion in a similar case would appear equally applicable here: “[T]he Board clearly found that [petitioner] had not demonstrated ‘genuine rehabilitation.’ Given [petitioner’s] long history of repeated criminal violations, we cannot say that this finding was not supported by substantial evidence.” *McLean v. INS,*901 F.2d 204, 205 (1st Cir.1990).

*The stay is vacated and the petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.*