alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ATTACHMENT III - EXPLANATORY APPENDIX 

On June 16, 2009, the Agency issued the Phase 5 Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision (RED) Product Data Call-In Notice pursuant to sections 

4(g)(2)(B) of FIFRA which required the registrants of products containing MGK264 used as an active ingredient to develop and submit certain data. The 

data/information were determined to be necessary to satisfy the reregistration 

requirements of section 4(g). Failure to comply with the requirements of a Phase 

5 Reregistration Eligibility Decision Product Data Call-In Notice (PDCI) is a basis 

for suspension under section 3(c) (2) (B) of FIFRA.

CTX Cenol Corporation received the MGK-264 RED/PDCI, as evidenced 

by the US Postal Service domestic return receipt card which was signed and 

dated on June 25, 2009. The 90-day response to the PDCI was received by the 

Agency on September 14, 2009. The 8-month response for this product (which 

was required to be submitted by March 16, 2010) has not been received by the 

Agency. On April 25, 2012, the Risk Management and Implementation Branch 

V, Chemical Review Manager, Veronica Dutch, sent a certified letter to Mr. Bart 

Baker, Vice President of CTX Cenol Corporation and informed him that CTX 

Cenol Corporation’s required 8-month PDCI response for the MGK-264 product 

(EPA Reg. No. 45385-93) was overdue. In the letter, it was stated that the 

Application for Reregistration (EPA Form 8570-1), two copies of the Confidential 

Statement of Formula (CSF), five copies of the draft labels, Certification with 

Respect to Citation of Data (EPA Form 8570-34), and Data Matrix (EPA Form 

8570-35) needed to be submitted for the product within 10 days from CTX’s

receipt of the letter or a Notice of Intent to Suspend would be issued. CTX Cenol 

Corporation received the April 25, 2012 letter, as evidenced by the US Postal 

Service domestic return receipt card, which was dated and signed by Amie S. 

Meeken on May 2, 2012. 

To date, the 8-month response, and the product specific data required for 

this product have not yet been received by the Agency. Therefore, this Notice of 

Intent to Suspend is being issued.
# C_2022128EN.01001501.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Commitments by Gazprom)

(Case T-616/18) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Gas markets of central and eastern Europe - Decision to make binding the individual commitments proposed by an undertaking - Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Whether the commitments are adequate in the light of the competition concerns initially identified in the statement of objections - Commission decision not to require commitments in relation to some of the initial concerns - Principle of sound administration - Transparency - Obligation to state reasons - Energy-policy objectives of the European Union - Principle of energy solidarity - Misuse of powers)

(2022/C 128/20)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Karasiewicz, T. Kaźmierczak, K. Kicun and P. Moskwa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: K. Dieninis and R. Dzikovič, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Nowacki, acting as Agents), and Overgas Inc. (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: S. Gröss and S. Cappellari, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Gazprom PJSC (Moscow, Russia), and Gazprom export LLC (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: J. Karenfort, J. Hainz, B. Evtimov, N. Tuominen and J. Heithecker, lawyers, as well as D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision C(2018) 3106 final of the Commission of 24 May 2018 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 [TFEU] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39816 — Upstream Gas Supplies in Central and Eastern Europe).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Poland and Overgas Inc. to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Poland and Overgas Inc. to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---
# C_2019213EN.01003101.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 May 2019 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)

(Cases T-152/18 to T-155/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for the EU figurative marks SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA - Earlier national word mark MULTIPLUS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 213/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sona Nutrition Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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: Solgar Holdings, Inc. (Ronkonkoma, New York, United States) (represented by: K. Neefs and S. Cubitt, lawyers)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 (Cases R 1319/2017-4, R 1321/2017-4, R 1322/2017-4 and R 1323/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sona Nutrition and Solgar Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Joins Cases T-152/18 to T-155/18 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Joins Cases T-152/18 to T-155/18 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Annuls the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 December 2017 (Cases R 1319/2017-4, R 1321/2017-4, R 1322/2017-4 and R 1323/2017-4); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 December 2017 (Cases R 1319/2017-4, R 1321/2017-4, R 1322/2017-4 and R 1323/2017-4);

| 3. | Orders EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc. to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Sona Nutrition Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc. to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Sona Nutrition Ltd.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

GENAERA CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John L. Armstrong, Jr., President and 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:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ John L. Armstrong, Jr.           
|John L. Armstrong, Jr.               
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|April 30, 2007
#### State v. Gonzalez

20987

10/29/98

Affirmed in part, Vacated in part & Remanded
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 6 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 6

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 6, 2015.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Agriculture: Mr. Conaway, Chair.
    Committee on Appropriations: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chair.
    Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Thornberry, Chair.
    Committee on the Budget: Mr. Tom Price of Georgia, Chair.
    Committee on Education and the Workforce: Mr. Kline, Chair.
    Committee on Energy and Commerce: Mr. Upton, Chair.
    Committee on Ethics: Mr. Dent, Chair; Mr. Meehan; Mr. Gowdy; Mrs. Brooks of 
Indiana; and Mr. Marchant.
    Committee on Financial Services: Mr. Hensarling, Chair.
    Committee on Foreign Affairs: Mr. Royce, Chair.
    Committee on Homeland Security: Mr. McCaul, Chair.
    Committee on House Administration: Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Chair; Mr. 
Harper; Mr. Schock; Mr. Nugent; Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois; and Mrs. Comstock.
    Committee on the Judiciary: Mr. Goodlatte, Chair.
    Committee on Natural Resources: Mr. Bishop of Utah, Chair.
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Mr. Chaffetz, Chair.
    Committee on Rules: Mr. Sessions, Chair; Ms. Foxx; Mr. Cole; Mr. Woodall; 
Mr. Burgess; Mr. Stivers; and Mr. Collins of Georgia.
    Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Mr. Smith of Texas, Chair.
    Committee on Small Business: Mr. Chabot, Chair.
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr. Shuster, Chair.
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Miller of Florida, Chair.
    Committee on Ways and Means: Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Chair.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Michael L. Bennett, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P.
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   Date: October 31, 2003    /s/ MICHAEL L. BENNETT
February 28, 2001

22371

#### Bank of America, FSB v. Olaivar

Affirmed
#### Commonwealth *v.*A Certain Gambling Device (Cowell, Appellant.).

Argued October 29, 1942.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, *347Baldrige, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.

*Lemuel B. Schofield,*with him *Owen M. Burns*and *M. E. Graham,*for appellant.

*Burton R. Laub,*District Attorney, with him *D. J. McLaughlin,*Asst. District Attorney, for appellee.

January 28, 1943:

Opinion by

Kenworthey, j.,

The facts in this ease are identical in all material respects with the facts in *Wigton’s Return,*151 Pa. Superior Ct. 337, and the cases were argued together.

The court below, largely on the basis of its interpretation of our decision in *Urban’s Appeal,*148 Pa. Superior Ct. 101, 24 A. (2d) 756, held the pin-ball machine here involved a device used for the purpose of gambling and declared it forfeit and directed it be destroyed.

What we have said in the Wigton Case demonstrates that we do not consider *Urban’s Appeal*controlling and that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the finding.

The order is therefore reversed, costs to be paid by the Commonwealth.
#### State v. Carvalho

15524

9/29/94

Granted

- Haw.App. -, 880 P.2d 217
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27413]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 14, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 8, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
135 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-102, CP2024-106.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-27413 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6155

ROBERT WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIE WELDON, Warden; STEVE J. LENSES, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-1006-2-22) Submitted: June 13, 2000 Decided: July 10, 2000 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Senn, Charleston, South Carolina; Jackson L. Barwick, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Robert Watson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Watson v. Weldon , No. CA-99-1006-2-22 (D.S.C. Jan. 18, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7405** 

KENNETH BERNARD DAVIS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HERB JACKSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00234

- RJC )

Submitted : January 21, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Kenneth Bernard Davis , Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Bernard D avis seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (20 12 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (20 12 ) . A certific ate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 )
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S . 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we3 deny Davis’ motion for a certificate of appealabi lity , deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentio ns are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
D ISMISSE D
# C_2018190EN.01000801.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 5 March 2018 — Safeway Ltd v Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd

(Case C-171/18)

(2018/C 190/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Safeway Ltd

Applicant:

Defendants: Andrew Richard Newton, Safeway Pension Trustees Ltd

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Where the rules of a pension scheme confer a power, as a matter of domestic law, upon the amendment of its Trust deed, to reduce retrospectively the value of both men’s and women’s accrued pension rights for a period between the date of a written announcement of intended changes to the scheme and the date when the Trust deed is actually amended, does Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (previously and at the material time Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome) require both men’s and women’s accrued pension rights to be treated as indefeasible during that period, in the sense that their pension rights are protected from retrospective reduction by the use of the domestic law power?

---
atlw_ex1013.htm

EXHIBIT 10.13
 
 
 
	 
	1

	

	 


 
 
	 
	2

	

	 


 
 
	 
	3

	

	 


 
 
	 
	4

	

	 


 
 
	 
	5

	

	 


 
 
	 
	6

	

	 


 
 
	 
	7

	

	 


 
 
	 
	8

	

	 


 
 
 
	9
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Elizabeth W. LARSON, Appellee.

No. 20481.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1963.

Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Meyer Rothwaeks and Robert A. Bernstein, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Edith House, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., for appellant.

Robert F. O’Malley, Louis S. Bonsteel, Smathers & Thompson, Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, JONES, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The record before us, we think, indicates that this case is controlled by Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lester, 366 U.S. 299, 81 S.Ct. 1343, 6 L. Ed.2d 306. The principle there stated requires a reversal here for the entry by the district court of a judgment for the United States.

Reversed and remanded.