alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Revisions to Outlines of Production for Single Tier Label Claims

Section VI of Outlines of Production must be updated to contain approved single-tier language 

for products within the scope of the Single Tier Rule. Outlines may be updated at any time 

through the single tier implementation period (2017-2021), provided that it is no later than when 

labels bearing single tier language are approved. During the transition, both single tier and 4-tier 

language may be listed in Section VI. Because of the flexibility in when this update can be 

made, firms are encouraged whenever possible to combine this revision with other changes, 

instead of making a special submission solely for this change.

An example update is shown below. The original 4-tier claim is in black text. Additions are in 

red. Refer to Veterinary Services Memorandum 800.54 for additional guidance.

___________________________________________________________________________

Outline Section VI.D

This product has been shown to be effective for the vaccination of healthy horses 4 months of 

age or older against Eastern, Western, and Venezuelan encephalomyelitis; tetanus; respiratory 

diseases caused by equine herpesvirus type 1 and equine influenza virus type A2; and West Nile 

virus. The duration of immunity against equine influenza is at least 6 months, and against West 

Nile virus is at least 12 months. For more information regarding efficacy and safety data, see 

productdata.aphis.usda.gov.

The following is the prior 4-tier claim, which may still appear on certain labels through the 

implementation period specified in the final rule for APHIS Docket 2011-0049. Labels solely 

for export may bear 4-tier claims indefinitely if allowed by the importing country.

For vaccination of healthy horses 4 months of age or older as an aid in the prevention of disease 

caused by Eastern, Western, and Venezuelan encephalomyelitis, and tetanus; as an aid in the 

prevention of viremia and mortality, and an aid in the reduction of severity of clinical disease 

caused by West Nile virus, and as an aid in the reduction of respiratory disease caused by equine 

herpesvirus type 1, and equine influenza virus type A2. The duration of immunity against equine 

influenza is at least 6 months and against West Nile virus is at least 12 months.

After the implementation period is over, the 4-tier language may be removed from the Outline 

during routine annual review (no special submission required), unless it still applies to active 

export-only labeling.
# C_2019103EN.01003802.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (ARMONIE)

(Case T-88/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ARMONIE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gruppo Armonie SpA (Casalgrande, Italy) (represented by: G. Medri, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 (Case R 2063/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ARMONIE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gruppo Armonie SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gruppo Armonie SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, A. Mark Young, certify that:

(1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of E Com Ventures, 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; and

(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.

Date:  December 10, 2004

/s/ A. Mark Young
-----------------------
A. Mark Young
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2018352EN.01004301.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/43

---

Action brought on 14 August 2018 — Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas (Meatlove)

(Case T-491/18)

(2018/C 352/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vafo Praha s.r.o. (Chrášt’any, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Vojáček, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas (Spigelau, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Meatlove — Application for registration No 15 557 374

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in Case R 264/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 86 

Expressing support for designation of February 4, 2015, as National Cancer 

Prevention Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2015 

Mr. ISRAEL (for himself, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. CONNOLLY, 

Mr. COOPER, Mr. DENT, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HANNA, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. 

LEVIN, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. SLAUGHTER, 

Ms. SPEIER, Mr. BEYER, Mr. NOLAN, Ms. LEE, and Mr. CICILLINE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of February 4, 2015, 

as National Cancer Prevention Day. 

Whereas National Cancer Prevention Day is a day to remind 

us that when looking at cancer we need to look at prevention and reducing risks for human health and the environment; 

Whereas when we work to prevent cancer risks, it impacts 

human health, the environment, and the economy; 

Whereas cancer is one of the leading causes of death around 

the world and has touched the lives of nearly everyone, 

either directly or indirectly; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 86 IH 

Whereas the disease is the cause of nearly 1 out of every 4 

deaths in the United States; 

Whereas by the end of 2015, approximately 1,658,370 new 

cases are expected to be diagnosed across the United 

States; 

Whereas more than 1,600 cancer-related deaths per day are 

expected throughout the year for a total of approximately 

589,430; and 

Whereas February 4, 2015, would be an appropriate date to 

designate as Cancer Prevention Day: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of National Cancer 

3 Prevention Day; 

4 (2) recognizes all efforts to raise the awareness 

5 for the reduction of cancer risks; and 

6 (3) recognizes the devastating effect cancer has 

7 on families and wishes to expand knowledge, encour8 age early detection, and work with friends in the 

9 medical and scientific fields to put an end to this 

10 deadly disease. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

November 20, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00733

- CR

Michael Kenneth MITCHELL

- GREEN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR11124 Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The trial court ’ s certification in this appeal states that “ this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal. ” The clerk ’ s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court ’ s certification accurately reflects that the criminal case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “ The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules. ” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25 .2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant causes an amended trial court certification to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this ord er showing appellant has the right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State

, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— S an Antonio 2003, order). All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the certification issue.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of November, 2019

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
28094

#### Makanui v. State

Affirmed
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**
FAA - 2013 - 0145 Docket Number

2012 - SW - 059 -AD Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket - NPRM Dart In structions for Continued Airworthiness No. ICA - D212 - 664, Revision 8, dated October 20, 2011.


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
1

Plum Pox Regulated Articles

§ 301.74-2(a)

Last update: June 2, 2000

1. All plant material and plant parts of Prunus (stone fruit) species other than P. avium, P. cerasus, P. 

effusa, P. laurocerasus, P. mahaleb, P. padus, P. sargentii, P. serotina, P. serrula, P. serrulata, P. 

subhirtella, P. yedoensis, and P. virginiana, except for seeds and fruit that is free of leaves and other 

plant parts. This includes, but is not limited to, trees, seedlings, root stock, budwood, branches, twigs, 

and leaves. 

 2. An inspector may designate any other product or article as a regulated article, if the inspector 

determines it to present a risk of spreading plum pox, and after the inspector notifies the person in 

possession of the product or article that it is subject to the restrictions in this subpart.
#### Lisa Jo CHAMBERLIN, Petitioner-Appellee v. Marshall L. FISHER, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant

No. 15-70012

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED July 10, 2017

Elizabeth Unger Carlyle, Kansas City, MO, Michael James Bentley, Esq., Michael Leland Cowan, Alicia Kate Margolis, Esq., Attorney, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, L.L.P., Jackson, MS, for Petitioner-Appel-lee.

Cameron Leigh Benton, Special Attorney to the Attorney General, Marvin Luther White, Jr., Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi,' Jackson, MS, for Respondent-Appellant.

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, JOLLY, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, HIGGINSON and COSTA, Circuit Judges.1

1

. Judge Graves is recused and did not participate in this decision.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in favor,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned executive officers of Ameriana Bancorp (the “Registrant”) hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (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 Registrant.





By:
/s/ Jerome J. GassenName:   Jerome J. GassenTitle:    President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
/s/ John J. LetterName:   John J. LetterTitle:    Principal Financial and Accounting Officer





Date: March 31, 2011
23 P.3d 774

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

March 2, 2001

22888

#### State v. Khalil

Affirmed
# C_2018166EN.01003401.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/34

---

Action brought on 1 March 2018 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K)

(Case T-136/18)

(2018/C 166/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kuota International Corp. Ltd (British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sintema Sport Srl (Albiate, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative trade mark K — European Union trade mark No 11 380 771

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 3111/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | hold and rule that the present action is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold and rule that the present action is admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it found that the applicant did not provide evidence of bad faith and held that the action seeking a declaration of invalidity based on Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR may not be allowed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it found that the applicant did not provide evidence of bad faith and held that the action seeking a declaration of invalidity based on Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR may not be allowed;

| — | declare European Union trade mark No 11 380 771 invalid on the basis of Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare European Union trade mark No 11 380 771 invalid on the basis of Article 59(1)(b) of the EUTMR;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
Last updated on Friday, July 11, 2014 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/index.cfm 

## Water: State, Tribal & Territorial Standards

Quick Links • Tribes • Territories • Regional Coordinators You are here: Water Science & Technology Surface Water Standards & Guidance Water Quality Standards State, Tribal & Territorial Standards 

# State, Tribal & Territorial Standards Water Quality Standards Re pository (WQS Repository) In this repository, EPA has compile d unofficial copies of state, territorial, an d authorized tribal wate r quality st andards tha t EPA has approved or are otherwise in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Please note the water quality standards may contain additional provisions outside the scope of the Clean Water Act, its implementing federal re gulations, or EPA's au thority. In some ca ses, these additional provisions have been included within this repository as supplementary information or for context. EPA is posting the water quality st andards in th is repository as a convenience to users and has made a reason able effort to ass ure their accuracy. Addi tionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for C lean Water Act purposes. Please contact the approp riate Regional EPA Water Qu ality Standards coordinator for quest ions abou t water quality standards fora particular state, tribe, or territory. 

## Searching Water Qu ality Standards Search water quality standards by keywords using the search box below. To view a particular state's standards, click on the map or use the drop down menu below.

Keyword Search
Search 

## Browse Water Quality Standards Choose a state from the map or list below. Alabama 

###  GO Tribes | Territories



## Water Quality Standards Database While updates to the Water Quality Standards Database ceased in 2007, you can still view water quality standard examples from i t (in table or map form) along with designated uses for some state's waters . See EPA's Water Quality St andards Database. 

## Federally Promulgated Standards In some states, EPA has promulga ted replacemen t standards for some waters . See Water Qualit y Standards Regulations for a list o f promulgation actions. 

# Page 1 of 2 State, Tribal & Territorial Standards | State, Tribal & Territorial Standards | US EP A

2 / 2 / 201 5 http ://water.e p a. g ov/scitech/sw g uidance/standards/w q slibrary /index.cf m

# Page 2 of 2 State, Tribal & Territorial Standards | State, Tribal & Territorial Standards | US EP A

2 / 2 / 201 5 http ://water.e p a. g ov/scitech/sw g uidance/standards/w q slibrary /index.cf m
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 21
                                        

                                            Percentage          State of
Subsidiaries (1)                               Owned          Incorporation
----------------                            ----------        -------------

Ameriana Bank of Indiana, F.S.B. (2)           100%           United States

Ameriana Bank of Ohio, F.S.B. (2)              100%           United States

Indiana Title Insurance Company (2)            100%           Indiana

Ameriana Insurance Agency, Inc. (2)            100%           Indiana

Ameriana Financial Services, Inc. (3)          100%           Indiana

Family Financial Life (4)                       19%           Louisiana

Deer Park Service Corporation (5)              100%           Ohio

-------------
(1)  Operations of the Company's wholly-owned direct subsidiaries,
     Ameriana-Indiana, Ameriana-Ohio, Ameriana Insurance and Indiana Title, and
     Ameriana-Indiana's wholly-owned subsidiary, AFS, are included in the
     Company's consolidated financial statements attached as an exhibit to the
     Annual Report.

(2)  First-tier subsidiary of the Company.

(3)  Second-tier subsidiary of the Company 100% owned by Ameriana-Indiana, a
     first-tier subsidiary of the Company.

(4)  Third-tier subsidiary of the Company 1/10 owned through stock investment
     and less than 1/10 owned through partnership interests of AFS, a
     second-tier subsidiary of the Company 100% owned by Ameriana-Indiana, a
     first-tier subsidiary of the Company.

(5)  Second-tier subsidiary of the Company 100% owned by Ameriana-Ohio, a
     first-tier subsidiary of the Company.
#### Elroy WULFENSTEIN and Mervyn K. Cox, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Ellis LARSON and Ora H. Larson, his wife, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 13617.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Oct. 25, 1974.

Patrick H. Fenton, Cedar City, for defendants and appellants.

Harry D. Pugsley, of Pugsley, Hayes, Watkiss, Campbell & Cowley, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and respondents.

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a judgment specifically enforcing an option agreement for the purchase of a ranch. Affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

The document, subject of this suit, is a one-page, printed option form designed to insert typewritten or handwritten data in the blanks to show the salient terms of the agreement.

Defendants, on appeal, say that 1) the document is unenforceable since the blanks were filled in after the signatures were affixed, and that 2) anyway the option was not exercised within the time mentioned in the writing.

The plaintiffs emphatically discount both contentions. This case is concerned only with disputed facts, and after a plenary hearing, there appears in the record to be sufficient credible, believable and admissible evidence which the trial judge obviously believed, which supports his conclusion, so as to convince us that he was not in error or inaccurate in his appraisal thereof.

Such evidence may be abstracted as follows :

A down payment was made, and the other terms were incorporated in the blanks, at the time the agreement was executed on March 8, 1971. The option was to be exercised by March 8, 1972. One of the terms was payment of $10,000 to a named escrow, Southern Utah Title Company. This was accomplished on March 4, 1972, the date upon which plaintiffs penned a letter of acceptance addressed to defendants at their home. The letter was mailed by certified mail on March 6, 1972, as evidenced by a post office receipt. The post office department attempted delivery to defendants at their address on March 7, 1972, as evidenced by a postal “Notice of At*651tempted Delivery” left at said time and place. Defendants picked up the letter and signed for it at the post office on March 13, 1972. The defendants did not check with the designated escrow to determine if the $10,000 had been deposited as required. The defendants had a copy of the option agreement for nearly a year without any complaint as to unauthorized filling in of blanks. Only one change was made in the option agreement, — by interlineation, — either before, at the time of, or after execution of the option, correcting the acreage from 1140 to 1040, — the actual area of the ranch. Such change seems to be of no consequence here.

The option provided for notice in writing to be given, which provision under the circumstances here, we think was fulfilled.

CALLISTER, C. J., and CROCKETT, ELLETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.