alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Chapter 2.4.4. – Infection with Marteilia refringens

Annex 19. Item 6.5.3. – Article 10.3.3. of Chapter 10.3. ‘Infection with *Gyrodactylus salaris*’

CHAPTER 10.3.

INFECTION WITH *GYRODACTYLUS SALARIS*

[...]

Article 10.3.3.

Measures for the importation or transit of aquatic animal products for any purpose regardless of the infection with *G. salaris* status of the exporting country, zone or compartment

The *aquatic animal products*listed below have been assessed as meeting the criteria for safety of *aquatic animal****products*in accordance with Article 5.4.1. When authorising the importation or transit of these *aquatic animal products*, *Competent Authorities*should not require any *sanitary measures*related to *G. salaris*, regardless of the *G. salaris* status of *the**exporting country*, *zone*or *compartment*:

1)	*aquatic animal products*that have been ~~heat treated and are hermetically sealed~~subjected to a heat treatment sufficient to attain a core temperature of at least 40°C for at least one minute, or a time/temperature equivalent that inactivates *G. salaris*;

~~2)~~~~mechanically dried eviscerated fish;~~

~~3~~2)	naturally dried eviscerated fish (i.e. sun-dried or wind-dried);

~~4~~3)	frozen eviscerated fish that have been subjected to minus 18°C or lower temperatures;

~~5~~4)	frozen fish fillets or steaks that have been subjected to minus 18°C or lower temperatures;

~~6~~5)	chilled eviscerated fish that have been harvested from seawater with a salinity of at least 25 parts per thousand (ppt) for a continuous period of at least 14 days;

~~7~~6)	chilled fish fillets or steaks derived from fish that have been harvested from seawater with a salinity of at least 25 ppt for a continuous period of at least 14 days;

~~8~~7)	chilled fish products from which the skin, fins and gills have been removed;

~~9~~8)	non-viable fish roe;

~~10~~9)	fish oil;

~~11~~10)	fish meal;

~~12~~11)	fish skin leather.

[...]

____________

WOAH *Aquatic Manual* 2025	8
#### The State, ex rel. Eikenbary, Appellant, *v.*Smith, Sheriff, et al., Appellees.

(No. 31661

Decided February 16, 1949.)

*Mr. Herbert M. Eikenbary,*for appellant.

*Mr. Mathias H. Heck,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. William H. Wolff*and *Mr. Lloyd O’Hara,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged, *sua sponte,*that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taft, JJ., concur.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 93 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the regulations promulgated by the Speaker to carry out the rule prohibiting 

admission to the Hall of the House by former House officials with 

business before Congress from providing an exemption for admission 

to the Hall for ceremonial or educational functions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2015 

Ms. KUSTER (for herself, Mrs. BUSTOS, Mr. COHEN, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

MURPHY of Florida, Mr. RUIZ, Mr. TAKANO, and Mr. WALZ) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

prohibit the regulations promulgated by the Speaker to 

carry out the rule prohibiting admission to the Hall 

of the House by former House officials with business 

before Congress from providing an exemption for admission to the Hall for ceremonial or educational functions. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthen 

4 House Floor Integrity Resolution’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 93 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING FORMER HOUSE OFFICIALS WITH 

2 BUSINESS BEFORE CONGRESS FROM ADMIS3 SION TO HALL OF THE HOUSE FOR CEREMO4 NIAL OR EDUCATIONAL FUNCTIONS. 

5 Clause 4(b) of rule IV of the Rules of the House of 

6 Representatives is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(b) The Speaker may promulgate regulations to 

8 carry out this rule, except that such regulations may not 

9 exempt ceremonial or educational functions from the re10 strictions of this clause.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS 

 

I, Robert T. McDowell, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Education Management Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’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 registrant and have: 

 

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

 

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

 

c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: February 9, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF LAHAINA  ACQUISITIONS FOR THE PERIOD FROM
JULY 9, 1999 (DATE OF INCEPTION) TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1999,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>                    US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          15,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          94,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,005,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,642,691
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    (1,389,431)
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,155,305)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,005,426
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,076,566
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,957,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               137,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,906
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,155,305)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,155,305)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.08)





</TABLE>
# C_2018455EN.01003202.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/32

---

Action brought on 22 October 2018 — Rose Gesellschaft v EUIPO — Iviton (TON JONES)

(Case T-633/18)

(2018/C 455/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Rose Gesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. Kornfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Iviton s. r. o. (Prešov, Slovakia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TON JONES’ — Application for registration No 15 109 614

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 2136/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to continue the opposition proceedings without applying the ground for dismissal used previously; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to continue the opposition proceedings without applying the ground for dismissal used previously;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | in any event, not award the trade mark applicant any costs in respect of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, not award the trade mark applicant any costs in respect of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---
# C_2019255EN.01004101.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2019 — Biolatte v EUIPO (Biolatte)

(Case T-229/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Biolatte - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 255/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biolatte Oy (Turku, Finland) (represented by: J. Ikonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2018 (Case R 351/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Biolatte as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Biolatte Oy to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Biolatte Oy to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---
#### Russell L. HAYES, Appellant, v. J. C. TAYLOR, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee.

No. 7452.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 2, 1963.

*728James M. Little, Oklahoma City, OkL, for appellant.

Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief) for appellee.

Before PICKETT, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner appeals from an order denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. The background facts are not in dispute.

Petitioner was convicted of a violation of 26 U.S.C.A. 7206, was sentenced to six years, and commenced service of such sentence on March 8, 1957. On July 31, 1961, petitioner received mandatory release with 584 days remaining of the sentence. Expiration of his sentence less 180 days, was thus September 8, 1962. On June 4, 1962, upon specific allegation of parole violation, the United States Board of Parole issued a warrant for petitioner’s arrest as a mandatory release violator. The warrant was executed September 11, 1962, and on November 7,1962, after a hearing, the Board of Parole determined petitioner to be a violator and reset his full term expiration date.

Petitioner’s claim that he was arrested under a void warrant is without merit. A parole violator’s warrant that is issued during the period of parole may be executed during the terminal 180-day period of the full sentence. Taylor v. Godwin, 10 Cir., 284 F.2d 116; Taylor v. Simpson, 10 Cir., 292 F.2d 698; Wright v. Taylor, 10 Cir., 294 F.2d 592.

Similarly without merit are petitioner’s dual contentions that he was denied a fair hearing before the Parole Board because the Board considered evidence of his conduct that occurred after the warrant was issued and because the Board revoked his parole upon insufficient evidence. Habeas corpus is a proper remedy to test only the jurisdiction of the Parole Board and other aspects of due process that are applicable to the limited rights of a parolee. Petitioner’s contentions do not raise a question of denial of due process.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 81 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 81

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee on 
          Intelligence in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2015

    Mr. Nunes (for himself and Mr. Schiff) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee on 
          Intelligence in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
(hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), 
including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out 
of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for 
committee salaries and expenses, not more than $9,194,000 for the One 
Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $4,597,000 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2015, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2016; and
            (2) not more than $4,597,000 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2016, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2017.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.8

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     OF THE
                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                               GENAERA CORPORATION

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

 Under Sections 222 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
                                    Delaware

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


         Genaera Corporation (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware (the "DGCL"), for the purpose of amending its Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, as amended, (the "Restated Certificate of Incorporation")
pursuant to Section 242 of the DGCL does hereby certify as follows:

1.       That the first sentence of ARTICLE FOURTH of the Restated Certificate
         of Incorporation of the Corporation be amended and restated in its
         entirety as follows:

         "FOURTH: The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
         Corporation shall have the authority to issue is 84,211,031 shares
         consisting of 9,211,031 shares of Convertible Preferred Stock, $.001
         par value (the "Preferred Stock"), and 75,000,000 shares of Common
         Stock, $.002 par value (the "Common Stock")."

2.       That the amendment set forth above has been duly adopted in accordance
         with Section 242 of the DGCL and pursuant to a unanimous recommendation
         of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, an annual meeting of the
         stockholders of the Corporation was duly called and held upon notice
         given in accordance with Section 222 of the DGCL, at which meeting the
         necessary number of shares required by statute were voted in favor of
         the amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be duly adopted and
executed in its corporate name and on its behalf by its duly authorized officer
as of the 5/th/ day of September 2001.

                                           GENAERA CORPORATION


                                           By: /s/ Christopher P. Schnittker
                                              -----------------------------
                                               Name: Christopher P. Schnittker
                                               Title:   Chief Financial Officer


                                                 STATE OF DELAWARE
                                                 SECRETARY OF STATE
                                                 DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
                                                 FILED 01:30 PM 09/06/2001
                                                 010441736 - 2130618
**Exhibit 31.02**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Dennis E. Bunday, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this report onForm 10-K of Williams Controls Inc.; 

     2. Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 

     4. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure control and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

     5. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors: 

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting.
# C_2019065EN.01004704.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/47

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC BROKERAGE)

(Case T-521/18) (1)

(2019/C 65/64)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

---