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 Education

          - [Docket No.: ED-2023-SCC-0214]

# AGENCY:

Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

# ACTION:

Correction notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        On December 18, 2023, the U.S. Department of Education published a 60-day comment period notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         with FR DOC# 2023-27726 (Page 87416, Column 3, Page 87417, Column 1, Column 2) seeking public comment for an information collection entitled, “Evaluation of Full-Service Community Schools”. The docket number is incorrect. The correct docket number is ED-2023-SCC-0214.                    

The PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Dated: December 18, 2023.

Juliana Pearson,

PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and Clearance, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

[FR Doc. 2023-28147 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
# C_2017070EN.01001501.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor)

(Case T-258/08) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Diacor - Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings - Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)))

(2017/C 070/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: U. Vogt, C. Kleiner and S. Ziegler, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Portela & Ca., SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2008 (Case R 1630/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Portela & Ca. and Mr Rath.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Matthias Rath to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Matthias Rath to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Bruce B. Nolte, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of TransCommunity Financial 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 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 report;



3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;



4.  The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a)  Designed such disclosure 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 us by 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 end of 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 annual report) 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 the registrant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 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 other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date:

January 22, 2007



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|/s/ Bruce B. Nolte                 
|Bruce B. Nolte                     
|President & Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  Certification
                Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
         of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                          Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code),  each of the
undersigned  officers of iWorld Projects & Systems,  Inc. (the "Company"),  does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  March 31, 2005 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company 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 Form 10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                             /s/ Robert Hipple
Date: May 13, 2005                           --------------------
                                             Name: Robert Hipple
                                             Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                             /s/ David Pells
Date: May 13, 2005                           ---------------
                                             Name: David Pells
                                             Title: Chief Operating Officer and
                                             President

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate
disclosure document.
#### Sophia A. Tucciarone, Doing Business as Carrier Circle Annex, Respondent, v Automobile Club of Syracuse, Inc., Appellant.

— Order unanimously modified in the exercise of discretion and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff operated an automobile service station and contracted with defendant to provide towing and related services to defendant’s members. Defendant agreed to reimburse plaintiff on a monthly basis. Plaintiff executed a promissory note payable to defendant based upon a loan for plaintiff’s purchase of a flatbed truck. Monthly payments on the note were to be deducted by defendant from plaintiff’s monthly reimbursement and all monies due became payable upon termination of the road service contract. Defendant terminated the road service contract on February 28, 1990 and refused to pay plaintiff for services *617rendered in February, 1990. The balance then due on the note was $9,504.17. Plaintiff alleged in her fourth cause of action that those services performed prior to termination of the contract were duly performed and that she was entitled to $6,500. Defendant asserted counterclaims seeking the balance due on the note, $100,000 for damage to business reputation, $25,000 in punitive damages and $4,000 for conversion of equipment.

Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on the fourth cause of action. Defendant’s general denial in its answer is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion *(see, Goldstein v Edwards,*81 AD2d 752; *Gordon v Allstate Ins. Co.,*71 AD2d 850). Although defendant alleged in opposition to plaintiff’s motion that plaintiff’s services in February, 1990 were negligently performed, it did not set out facts in evidentiary form and failed to specify a single complaint by date, location or incident to support such claim.

We modify the order, however, in the exercise of our discretion *(see,*CPLR 3212 [e] [2]), to stay execution of partial summary judgment pending resolution of defendant’s counterclaims which seek damages in excess of the amount sought in plaintiff’s fourth cause of action. Absent such stay, defendant could suffer possible financial prejudice if it prevails on the unresolved claims *(see, Stigwood Organisation v Devon Co.,*44 NY2d 922, 923; *Levy v Renck,*137 AD2d 464, 466). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Den-man, Green and Lowery, JJ.
SCPR-22-0000677

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN RE GANSIN K. LI, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN GOOD STANDING

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition to resign from the 

practice law in the State of Hawai#i, filed by attorney 

Gansin K. Li, pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme

Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), but to retain the paper

license as a memento, as authorized by RSCH Rule 1.10(b), and the

affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude that

Petitioner Li has fully complied with the requirements of 

RSCH Rule 1.10. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g),

that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and

record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPR-22-0000677

28-NOV-2022

02:27 PM

Dkt. 6 OGP
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner Li, attorney number 5331, from the roll of

attorneys of the State of Hawai#i, effective with the filing of

this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 28, 2022. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, against John Kildare, Defendant.

Court of General Sessions of County of New York,

November 5, 1959.

*John Kildare,*defendant in person.

*Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Charles J. McDonough*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Thomas Dickens, J.

Defendant challenges the validity of the sentence. In his letter he contends that his plea of guilty was interposed to the crime of “ feloniously possessing a narcotic drug,” not to that of *“*attempted felonious possessing of a narcotic drug.”- With respect to this matter, I find that the notation, made by the clerk on the indorsement sheet attached to the indictment, reads “ attempt to feloniously possess a narcotic drug.” Also with respect to the same matter, the minutes of sentence, dated November 26,1952, contain the following language in part, used by his attorney in addressing his plea to the Judge: *“*The defendant pleaded guilty of an *attempt*to sell and feloniously possess a narcotic drug”. (Italics supplied.) At any rate, it is evident from the minutes of sentence, above referred to, that the sentencing Judge, on the basis of the probation report, deemed defendant to be a fit subject for reformation. Consequently, in the exercise of the discretionary power vested in him by virtue of section 2185 of the Penal Law, the Judge sentenced defendant to be confined in Elmira *558Reformatory, rather than in a State prison under a mandatory sentence called for by the terms of section 1751 of the Penal Law.

The application is denied.

The District Attorney is directed to enter an order in conformance with the decision herein and to forward a certified copy to defendant.
# C_2008064EN.01003101.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/31

---

Appeal brought on 22 January 2008 by Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 November 2007 in Case T-38/04: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-21/08 P)

(2008/C 64/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd (represented by: H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, K. Lochner, B. Ertle, C. Neuhierl, S. Prückner, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment under appeal;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to bear costs of the proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to bear costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in its application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) by comparing single parts of the two trademarks and not assessing their overall impression on the consumer.

1

According to the appellant the Court of First Instance distorted facts and evidence when it stated that the device part of the trademark applied for contains a stylized sun rather than a ‘star’ symbol and when it omitted to take the letter ‘S’ into account when comparing the overall impression of the trademarks.

The appellant also maintains that the reasoning of the Court of First Instance is contradictory in that, at paragraph 39 of the judgment, it states that the additional components create differences between the trademarks but fails to consider those components when comparing the trademarks phonetically.

Finally the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in not taking into account the category of goods and services in question and the circumstances in which they are marketed when assessing the likelihood of confusion.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (JO L 11, p. 1).

1

---
EXHIBIT 21.1

                      Subsidiaries of Aetrium Incorporated


1.       Aetrium Corporation, organized under the laws of Minnesota

2.       Aetrium Foreign Sales Corporation, organized under the laws of Barbados

3.       Sym-Tek Incorporated of Minnesota, organized under the laws of
         Minnesota

4.       Aetrium-EJ Inc., organized under the laws of Minnesota

5.       Aetrium-AI Inc., organized under the laws of Minnesota

6.       Aetrium-FSA Texas Inc., organized under the laws of Minnesota

7.       Aetrium-FSA, LP, organized under the laws of Texas

8.       Aetrium-WEB Technology Inc., organized under the laws of Minnesota

9.       Aetrium-WEB Technology, LP, organized under the laws of Texas
Supporting Analysis for July 2, 2011 Salt River Exceedance

Figure 1: Phoenix Area 24-Hour PM10 Averages on July 2, 2011

Figure 2: Google Earth Image Overlay of 24-hour PM10 averages and ADEQ GIS Analysis for 11:00 -11:30 PM
Figure 3: Google Earth Image Overlay of 24-hour PM10 averages and ADEQ GIS Analysis for 11:00 -11:30 PM

After closer examination of the Salt River data on 7/2/2011, it appears that may be possible the exceedance may have

been caused by local agricultural activity (per information from Stan at Salt River), not the regional dust storm on the

evening of 7/2/2011 and morning of 7/3/2011.

Looking at the data it is apparent that the dust storm on the evening of 7/2/2011 reached the Salt River monitor at the

11 PM hour, but nearby concentrations indicate that the total contribution of the dust storm on the evening of the 2nd

was only approximately 35 ug/m3 (Based on concentrations from hourly data at the West Chandler monitoring site

located to the south of Salt River)... the but-for for this exceedance would need a 62 ug/m3 contribution (216 ug/m3 –

24 hr NAAQS of 154 ug/m3)

Also, nearby concentrations at other Salt River PM10 sites only measured a 24 hour average of 74 ug/m3, which supports the notion that 

the exceedance of 216 μg/m3 was isolated and not associated with broader regional transport from the evening dust storm. 
Table 1: Estimated Event Contribution 

Hour West Chandler Hourly PM10 West Chandler Hourly PM10 (w/o Event)1

00:00 38 38

01:00 46 46

02:00 41 41

03:00 43 43

04:00 44 44

05:00 47 47

06:00 57 57

07:00 35 35

08:00 53 53

09:00 32 32

10:00 52 52

11:00 57 57

12:00 40 40

13:00 38 38

14:00 39 39

15:00 82 82

16:00 36 36

17:00 60 60

18:00 47 47

19:00 55 55

20:00 48 48

21:00 32 32

22:00 32 32

23:00 871 46

24-hour Average 80 46

Estimated Event Contribution W. Chandler: 34

Salt River 24 hr PM10 216

Salt River 24 hr PM10 w/o Event 182

 1 The 24-hour concentration for West Chandler without the influence of the event in the 11:00 PM – 12:00 AM was calculated with the use of a 

substituted value of 46 μg/m3

, which represents the average of the hourly PM10 concentrations for the remaining portion of the day.
# C_2021431EN.01002101.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC, successor in law to the company Energoalians

(Case C-741/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy Charter Treaty - Article 26 - Inapplicability between Member States - Arbitration Award - Judicial review - Jurisdiction of a court of a Member State - Dispute between a third-State operator and a third State - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 1(6) of the Energy Charter Treaty - Concept of ‘investment’)

(2021/C 431/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Republic of Moldova

Defendant: Komstroy LLC, successor in law to the company Energoalians

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(6) and Article 26(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty, signed at Lisbon on 17 December 1994, approved on behalf of the European Communities by Council and Commission Decision 98/181/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 23 September 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the acquisition, by an undertaking of a Contracting Party to that treaty, of a claim arising from a contract for the supply of electricity, which is not connected with an investment, held by an undertaking of a third State against a public undertaking of another Contracting Party to that treaty, does not constitute an ‘investment’ within the meaning of those provisions.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *296Ramon Lopez Moran, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered February 20, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the prosecutor did not, in his summation comments, usurp the court’s function of instructing the jury on the law *(see, People v Johnstone,*131 AD2d 782, 783; *People v Cheek,*121 AD2d 649; *People v Robinson,*83 AD2d 887; *cf, People v Sepulveda,*105 AD2d 854, 857). Furthermore, the sentence imposed was not excessive under the circumstances presented *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Kooper, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      SENATE ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

  The Speaker announced his signature to enrolled bills of the Senate 
of the following titles:

       S. 270. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
     convey certain Federal land to Deschutes County, Oregon.
       S. 271. An act to require the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     enter into a property conveyance with the city of Wallowa, 
     Oregon, and for other purposes.
       S. 739. An act to authorize the Architect of the Capitol to 
     establish battery recharging stations for privately owned 
     vehicles in parking areas under the jurisdiction of the 
     Senate at no net cost to the Federal Government.
       S. 3363. An act to provide for the use of National Infantry 
     Museum and Soldier Center Commemorative Coin surcharges, and 
     for other purposes.

                          ____________________
```