alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Annex 3

The USA would like to commend WOAH for its essential work and thank the Code Commission for having taken into consideration USA comments on the Terrestrial Code submitted previously.

In addition, as requested in Dr. Rosemary Sifford’s letter of June 24, 2022, to the Director General, the USA is renewing our request for the WOAH to promptly review and update Chapter 14.8. Scrapie by establishing a priority order 1 in the Work Program for the Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission (TAHSC). As noted in the Code Commission’s February 2022 report, a decision was made to retain Scrapie as a listed disease. The last revision of chapter 14.8 was in 2011, since then science has advanced our understanding of this disease, making the current standard obsolete and producing barriers to safe international trade. Further, the USA requests that, as a part of the update, live animal scrapie testing and testing for genetic resistance to scrapie be included as valid methods for ensuring the safe trade of sheep and goats between scrapie affected countries.

Also, the USA appreciates the extensive effort by the TAHSC and the corresponding Ad hoc Group on enhancements to the definition of *poultry* in the Glossary. Given the mounting scientific evidence demonstrating that birds used for restocking supplies of game raised for release and those kept in a single household (also referred to a “backyard birds”), particularly those that may have limited sales – such as eggs, pose negligible risk to *poultry* or *poultry* facilities; therefore, the USA urges WOAH to request that the Ad hoc Group further review the risk posed by these populations of birds and consider further amending the definition of *poultry* prior to proposing it for adoption.

**WORK PROGRAMME FOR**

**THE TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL HEALTH STANDARDS COMMISSION**

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / September 2022	1

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / September 2022	1

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / September 2022	1
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Auditors



The Board of Directors
Performance Food Group Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 
333-12223 and 33-72400) on Form S-8 of Performance Food Group 
Company of our report dated February 9, 1998, relating to the consolidated 
balance sheets of Performance Food Group Company and subsidiaries as of 
December 27, 1997 and December 28, 1996, and the related consolidated 
statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the 
fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 27, 1997, which report 
is included in the 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of Performance Food 
Group Company.  We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the 
aforementioned registration statements of our report dated February 9, 1998, 
relating to the financial statement schedule of the Company, which report is 
included in this Form 10-K.


	                                         /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Richmond, Virginia
March 24, 1998

<PAGE>
Financial Data Schedule ( for SEC use only)
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4496 

To amend the Clean Air Act with respect to nonattainment plan provisions, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2017 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona (for himself, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. 

SCHWEIKERT, and Ms. MCSALLY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act with respect to nonattainment 

plan provisions, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Air Contingency 

5 Measures Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 7502(c)(9)) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: ‘‘Nothing in this Act precludes, with respect to any 

10 plan or plan provision, the inclusion and approval of conVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:27 Dec 02, 2017 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4496.IH H4496

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4496 IH

1 tingency measures that are or may be implemented or take 

2 effect prior to the area involved failing to make reasonable 

3 further progress or to attain any national primary ambient 

4 air quality standard by the applicable attainment date.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2007269EN.01006602.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/66

---

Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Republic of Latvia v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-369/07)

(2007/C 269/121)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: E. Balode-Buraka, K. Bārdiņa)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2007) 3409, of 13 July 2007, on the amendment of the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Latvia under Article 3(3) of Commission Decision C/2006/5612 (final), of 29 November 2006, on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Latvia under European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87/EC (1). |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2007) 3409, of 13 July 2007, on the amendment of the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Latvia under Article 3(3) of Commission Decision C/2006/5612 (final), of 29 November 2006, on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Latvia under European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87/EC (1).

1

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

| — | Adjudicate under an expedited procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Adjudicate under an expedited procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that, by interpreting very widely the rights conferred by Article 9(3) of Commission Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission has significantly restricted the sovereign rights of the Republic of Latvia in relation to energy, in particular, as regards its choice of energy sources and as regards the supply of electrical energy, thus disregarding the powers set out in Article 175(2)(c) of the EC Treaty.

Similarly, the applicant submits that the Commission has infringed the principle of non-discrimination, in that the application of the method of calculation devised by it to determine the total volume of greenhouse gas emissions allowed disadvantages the Member States with low total emissions.

The applicant also submits that the first criterion of Annex III of Directive 2003/87 has been infringed in that the Commission, when adopting the decision, did not take account of the international obligations of the Republic of Latvia under the Kyoto Agreement.

Finally, it submits that the Decision was adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements in that the time limit for rejection of the plan set by Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87 was not respected.

---

(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

1

---
**Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 January 2010 – REWE‐Zentral v OHIM – Grupo Corporativo Teype (Solfrutta)**

**(Case T-331/08)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark Solfrutta – Earlier Community word mark FRUTISOL – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Partial refusal of registration – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 27-30)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 (Case R 1679/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Corporativo Teype, SL and REWE-Zentral AG. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | REWE-Zentral AG |
| Community trade mark sought: | The word mark Solfrutta for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Grupo Corporativo Teype, SL |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Community trade mark registration No 1687722 of the word mark FRUTISOL for goods in Class 32; Spanish trade mark registration No 2018327 of the word mark FRUTISOL for goods in Class 32 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition partially upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 (Case R 1679/2007-2); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

   IN RECOGNITION OF THE 199TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF LAKE ERIE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 199th 
anniversary of the Battle of Lake Erie.
  Fought on September 10, 1813 during the War of 1812, the Battle of 
Lake Erie was a naval victory for the Americans led by Master 
Commandant Oliver Hazard Perry. The American fleet consisted of nine 
vessels: Brig Lawrence, Brig Niagara, Brig Caledonia, Schooner Ariel, 
Schooner Scorpion, Schooner Somers, Sloop Trippe, Schooner Porcupine, 
Schooner Tigress and Schooner Ohio carrying 557 crewmen. Commander 
Robert Heriot Barclay led the British forces and their six vessels: the 
Detroit, Queen Charlotte, Lady Prevost, Brig Hunter, Little Belt and 
Chippeway.
  The Battle of Lake Erie, waged over control of Fort Malden, started 
early in the morning. Following hours of fierce gunfight, the American 
flagship, the Lawrence had been disabled. However, the Niagara had been 
spared and within another half hour, Perry and his crew from the 
Lawrence had moved over to the Niagara from which they led the 
Americans to victory. They had captured all of the British vessels.
  This year's celebration will span from August 30 to September 8. It 
will feature performances by the U.S. Coast Guard Dixieland Jazz Band 
at the Port of Cleveland Harbor and the Navy Band Concert at Catawba 
Island Club. This year's events have been selected to be a lead up to 
next year's bicentennial celebration.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognition of the 
199th anniversary of the Battle of Lake Erie.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The Honorable Michael F. Bennet led the Pledge of Allegiance, as 
follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________
```
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4555 

AN ACT 

To authorize the participation in overseas interagency 

counterterrorism task forces of personnel of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4555 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DHS Interagency 

3 Counterterrorism Task Force Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. OVERSEAS INTERAGENCY COUNTERTERRORISM 

5 TASK FORCE PARTICIPATION. 

6 Section 102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

7 (6 U.S.C. 112) is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(h) COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL DE10 PARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OVERSEAS.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized 

12 to assign Department personnel to participate in 

13 overseas interagency counterterrorism task forces 

14 to— 

15 ‘‘(A) facilitate the sharing of counterter16 rorism information, and 

17 ‘‘(B) combat the threat of terrorism and 

18 associated risks to the United States stemming 

19 from overseas sources of conflict or terrorism, 

20 as determined by the Secretary. 

21 ‘‘(2) PERSONNEL.—In carrying out this sub22 section, the Secretary may assign personnel from 

23 any component of the Department the Secretary de24 termines necessary to participate in the overseas 

25 counterterrorism task forces referred to in para26 graph (1).’’. 
3 

•HR 4555 EH

1 SEC. 3. ANNUAL REPORTS. 

2 Not later than 18 months after the date of the enact3 ment of this Act and annually thereafter for 3 years, the 

4 Secretary of Homeland Security shall report to the Com5 mittee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Foreign 

6 Affairs, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 

7 and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 

8 Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security 

9 and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Foreign Re10 lations, Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Com11 mittee on Armed Services of the Senate on activities car12 ried out pursuant to subsection (h) of section 102 of the 

13 Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), as added 

14 by section 2 of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 9, 

2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4555 

AN ACT 

To authorize the participation in overseas interfor other purposes. of the Department of Homeland Security, and agency counterterrorism task forces of personnel
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1


                                COHO ENERGY, INC.
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



<TABLE>
<S>                                                                                                     <C>
Coho Resources Limited, Alberta, Canada (100% subsidiary of Coho Energy, Inc.) 
Coho Resources, Inc., Nevada (owned 41.14% by Coho Resources Limited and 58.86% by Coho Energy, Inc.) 
Coho Marketing & Transportation, Inc., Nevada (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources, Inc.)
Coho Shell Company, Delaware (100% subsidiary of Coho Energy, Inc.) 
Profile Petroleum Ltd., Alberta, Canada (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources Limited)
Grayon Developments Limited, Alberta, Canada (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources Limited) 
Coho International Limited, Bahamas (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources Limited) 
Coho Anaguid, Inc., Delaware (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources, Inc.)
Interstate Natural Gas Company, Delaware (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources, Inc.) 
Coho Exploration, Inc., Delaware (100% subsidiary of Interstate Natural Gas Company) 
Coho Louisiana Production Company, Delaware (100% subsidiary of Interstate Natural Gas Company) 
Coho Oil & Gas, Inc. Delawre, (100% subsidiary of Coho Resources, Inc.) 
</TABLE>


                                       71
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Linval Gooden, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered September 16, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted following a jury trial. In attempting to perfect his appeal from the judgment of conviction, it became apparent that portions of the trial record had been lost. By decision and order dated July 26,1989, this court denied the defendant’s motion for summary reversal, but granted his application for the alternate relief of a reconstruction hearing. That hearing has since been completed. We now affirm the defendant’s conviction.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that even after considering the testimony adduced at the reconstruction hearing, the record is still inadequate for meaningful appellate review. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that the record is inadequate to disclose the existence of appealable and reviewable issues *(see, People v Glass,*43 NY2d 283; *People v Smalls,*116 AD2d 675). Indeed, the defendant must establish the inadequacy of the record by substantial evidence *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9) in order to rebut the presumption of validity and regularity which attaches to all judgments of conviction *(see, People v Bell,*29 NY2d 882; *People v Suren,*131 AD2d 896). In the instant case, the defendant failed to meet this burden.

Of the numerous matters considered at the reconstruction hearing, the only issue which was not developed with specificity was whether or not the defendant was deprived of a fair trial due to the submission to the jury of a verdict sheet containing elements of the crimes charged *(see, People v Nimmons,*72 NY2d 830). The record does reveal, however, that the defense counsel had no recollection of objecting to the submission of the verdict sheet and hence, any issue of law in connection therewith is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Wilkerson,*162 AD2d 568; *People v Freeman,*162 AD2d 704; *People v Hallums,*157 AD2d 800). Moreover, review of this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice *878jurisdiction is unwarranted *(see, People v Comer,*163 AD2d 485; *People v Canada,*157 AD2d 793; *People v Mathis,*150 AD2d 613).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.
================================================================================

                                  Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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




In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Tari Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended  December 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15
         (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all
         material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
         of the Company.



Date:  June 17, 2004


                                                /s/  Theodore Tsagkaris
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Theodore Tsagkaris
                                                Secretary, Treasurer & C.F.O.
                                                (Principal Financial Officer and
                                                Principal Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                   TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, James Laird,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,  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; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

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


                                        /S/ James F. Laird
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Print Name: James F. Laird
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                        Date: March 21, 2003
# C_2008236EN.01001002.xml

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Filomena Califano v Wind SpA

(Case C-318/08)

(2008/C 236/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Ischia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Filomena Califano

Applicant:

Defendant: Wind SpA

Defendant:

Question referred

Do the Community rules in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Directive 2002/22/EC (1), Directive 1999/44/EC (2), Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC (3) and Directive 1998/257/EC (4) have direct effect and must they be interpreted as meaning that disputes ‘in the area of electronic communications between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the rules on universal service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms and service charters’ (the disputes contemplated by Article 2 of Decision No 173/07/CONS of the Regulatory Authority) must not be made subject to a mandatory attempt at conciliation without which proceedings in that regard may not be brought before the courts, thus taking precedence over the rule laid down in Article 3(1) of Decision No 173/07/CONS?

1

2

3

4

in the area of electronic communications between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the rules on universal service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms and service charters

---

(1)  OJ L 108, p. 51.

1

(2)  OJ L 171, p. 12.

2

(3)  Commission Recommendation.

3

(4)  Commission Recommendation.

4

---