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



Allied Automotive Group, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaAxis Group, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaAllied Systems, Ltd., LP
    
    GeorgiaAllied Systems (Canada) Company
    
    Nova ScotiaGACS Incorporated
    
    GeorgiaAllied Freight Broker, LLC
    
    DelawareQAT, Inc.
    
    FloridaTerminal Services, LLC
    
    DelawareF.J. Boutell Driveaway, LLC
    
    DelawareRMX, LLC
    
    DelawareTransport Support, LLC
    
    DelawareCommercial Carriers, Inc.
    
    MichiganHaul Insurance Limited
    
    Cayman IslandsAH Industries, Inc.
    
    AlbertaKar-Tainer International Limited
    
    BermudaAxis Netherlands, LLC
    
    GeorgiaAxis Areta, LLC
    
    GeorgiaArrendadora de Equipo para el
    
    MexicoTransporte de Automoviles, s. de R.L.de C.V.Axis Logistica, S. de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoLogistic Technology, LLC  Georgia
    
    GeorgiaLogistic Systems, LLC
    
    GeorgiaAxis Canada Company
    
    Nova ScotiaCT Services, Inc.
    
    MichiganCordin Transport, LLC
    
    DelawareAxis Operadora Hermosillo
    
    MexicoACE Operations, LLC
    
    GeorgiaAxis Operadora Mexico S.A. DE C.V.
    
    MexicoAxis Traslados, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.
    
    MexicoAxis Operadora Guadalajara S.A. DE C.V.
    
    MexicoAxis Operadora Monterrey S.A. DE C.V.
    
    Mexico
# C_2009233EN.01001502.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/15

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2009 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Bayer (LIVENSA)

(Case T-159/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2009/C 233/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, United States) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2008 (Case R 960/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Bayer AG and The Procter & Gamble Company.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by OHIM.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 89720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28681]



[[Page 89720]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Comparative Primate Aging and Longevity.
    Date: January 30, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Kaitlyn Noel Lewis Hardell, Ph.D., M.P.H., 
Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National 
Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg., Suite 
2E405, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 555-1234, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#90fbf1f9e4fce9febef8f1e2f4f5fcfcd0fef9f8bef7ffe6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abc0cac2dfc7d2c585c3cad9cfcec7c7ebc5c2c385ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 22, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-28681 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

               NATIONAL CHILDHOOD OBESITY AWARENESS MONTH

  (Ms. FUDGE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of America's 12\1/2\ 
million obese youth. I stand on behalf of America's 3.7 million low-
income children between the ages of 2 and 4 who are either overweight 
or obese. Millions of our children depend on school meals and the 
generosity of food pantries for most of their nutrients. These are the 
children I've come to speak to you about today.
  September is National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month, the month 
when Americans are reminded of the plight facing our children if we 
don't ensure they receive better meals and build an environment that 
promotes physical activity.
  It is time to get involved in the well-being of every child in 
America. So join me. Make a difference in a child's life during 
National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month and all year long.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF MANUGISTICS GROUP, INC.

         Listed below are the significant subsidiaries of the Company and their
jurisdictions of organization. All of these subsidiaries are wholly owned by
the Company.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     State or
                                                   Jurisdiction
                                                 of Incorporation      Name Under Which
 Name                                            or Organization      Subsidiary Does Business
 ----                                            ---------------      ------------------------
 <S>                                           <C>                    <C>
 Manugistics Colorado, Inc.                    Delaware               Manugistics, Inc.

 Manugistics, Inc.                             Delaware               Manugistics, Inc.

 Manugistics France S.A.                       France                 Manugistics France S.A.

 Manugistics, Inc. Foreign                     Virgin Islands         Manugistics, Inc.
  Sales Corporation

 Manugistics U.K. Ltd.                         United Kingdom         Manugistics U.K. Ltd.

 Manugistics Canada Company                    Nova Scotia            Manugistics Canada Company

 Manugistics (Deutschland) GmbH                Germany                Manugistics (Deutschland) GmbH

 Manugistics European Holding                  Netherlands            Manugistics European
  Company B.V.                                                         Holding Company B.V.

 Manugistics Services, Inc.                    Delaware               Manugistics, Inc.

 Manugistics Japan K.K.                        Japan                  Manugistics Japan K.K.

 Manugistics do Brasil Limitada                Brazil                 Manugistics do Brasil Limitada

 Manugistics Singapore PTE LTD                 Singapore              Manugistics Singapore PTE LTD

 Manugistics Australia Pty LTD                 Australia              Manugistics Australia Pty LTD

 Manugistics Holdings Delaware, Inc.           Delaware               Manugistics Holdings Delaware,
                                                                      Inc.

 Synchronized Manufacturing Group, Ltd.        United Kingdom         Synchronized Manufacturing
                                                                      Group, Ltd.


</TABLE>


<PAGE>   2

<TABLE>
 <S>                                           <C>                    <C>
 Synchronized Manufacturing SA                 Belgium                Synchronized Manufacturing SA



</TABLE>



                                      1
DATA SNAPSHOT

INCOME & POVERTY IN APPALACHIA

of the U.S. average

$60,525 vs. $75,558

APPALACHIA U.S.

80%

Appalachia’s household 

income is

Within Appalachia, household 

income is highest in Southern

Appalachia and lowest in 

Central Appalachia 

Central Appalachia

U.S.

Southern Appalachia $63,620

$47,534

$75,558

Per capita income is

$24,302

in Appalachia 

This is 84% of the

U.S. average of $28,930

17.1% of Appalachians live below the 

poverty level. The U.S. average is 15.5%.

U.S. APPALACHIA

15.5% 17.1% live below the poverty 

level. The U.S. average 

is 9.4%.

24.4%

9.5%

live below the poverty

level, compared with

Appalachian children 21.7% of kids in the U.S.

of 

Appalachian adults

age 65+

of 

Find more data on this and other topics at www.arc.gov/chartbook

Source: American Community Survey, 2011-2015
# C_2020054EN.01001102.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel, Rechtbank Amsterdam — Luxembourg, Netherlands) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued against JR (C-566/19 PPU) and YC (C-626/19 PPU)

(Joined Cases C-566/19 PPU and C-626/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - Criteria - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purpose of criminal proceedings)

(2020/C 54/14)

Languages of the case: French and Dutch

Referring courts

Cour d’appel, Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

JR (C-566/19 PPU), YC (C-626/19 PPU)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the public prosecutors of a Member State, who are responsible for conducting public prosecutions and are placed under the management and supervision of their hierarchical superiors, fall within the concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of that provision, provided that their status affords them a guarantee of independence, in particular in relation to the executive, in the context of the issuing of a European arrest warrant.

Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection from which a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant is issued for the purpose of criminal proceedings must benefit are fulfilled if, according to the law of the issuing Member State, the conditions for issuing such a warrant, and in particular its proportionality, are subject to judicial review in that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.

OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---
Counties in Bold Contain Distressed Areas

County Economic Status and Number of Distressed Areas in 

Appalachian Georgia, Fiscal Year 2020

County Status

Economic

Areas

Distressed

Number of

County Status

Economic

Areas

Distressed

Number of

Banks Transitional

Barrow Transitional 1

Bartow Transitional 2

Carroll Transitional 3

Catoosa Transitional

Chattooga At-Risk 4

Cherokee Competitive

Dade Transitional

Dawson Transitional

Douglas Transitional

Elbert At-Risk 2

Fannin Transitional

Floyd Transitional 5

Forsyth Attainment

Franklin At-Risk 1

Gilmer At-Risk

Gordon Transitional 2

Gwinnett Transitional 13

Habersham Transitional 1

Hall Transitional 6

Haralson Transitional 1

Hart Transitional 1

Heard At-Risk

Jackson Transitional

Lumpkin Transitional

Madison Transitional

Murray At-Risk 4

Paulding Transitional

Pickens Transitional

Polk At-Risk 2

Rabun Transitional 1

Stephens Transitional 1

Towns At-Risk

Union Transitional

Walker Transitional 3

White Transitional 1

Whitfield Transitional 4

Appalachian Regional Commission, June 2019
Distressed Areas in Appalachian Georgia, 

Fiscal Year 2020

County

Census Tract 

ID Number County

Census Tract 

ID Number

Barrow 1802.03

Bartow 9607

Bartow 9608.02

Carroll 9101.01

Carroll 9105.01

Carroll 9105.02

Chattooga 102

Chattooga 103

Chattooga 104

Chattooga 105

Elbert 1

Elbert 4

Floyd 5

Floyd 6

Floyd 11

Floyd 16

Floyd 21

Franklin 8904

Gordon 9704

Gordon 9705

Gwinnett 501.05

Gwinnett 503.19

Gwinnett 503.20

Gwinnett 504.17

Gwinnett 504.18

Gwinnett 504.21

Gwinnett 504.22

Gwinnett 504.34

Gwinnett 505.22

Gwinnett 505.37

Gwinnett 505.39

Gwinnett 505.41

Gwinnett 505.42

Habersham 6.02

Hall 7.01

Hall 8

Hall 10.03

Hall 11.01

Hall 11.02

Hall 14.03

Haralson 103.01

Hart 9604

Murray 101

Murray 102.01

Murray 106

Murray 107

Polk 104

Polk 107

Rabun 9703.02

Stephens 9703.01

Walker 201

Walker 202

Walker 203.01

White 9502.01

Whitfield 3.01

Whitfield 4

Whitfield 5.02

Whitfield 13

Appalachian Regional Commission, June 2019
HALL FLOYD

POLK

GILMER

BARTOW

RABUN

WALKER

FANNIN

CARROLL

UNION

ELBERT

HART

HEARD

GWINNETT

MURRAY

GORDON

CHEROKEE

WHITE

JACKSON

BANKS

LUMPKIN

DADE

PAULDING

MADISON

WHITFIELD

FRANKLIN

PICKENS

FORSYTH

HARALSON

CHATTOOGA

DAWSON

TOWNS

DOUGLAS

BARROW

STEPHENS

CATOOSA

HABERSHAM

0 25 50

Miles

Levels of 

Economic Status

Distressed County

At-Risk County

Transitional County

Competitive County

Attainment County

County Economic Status in Appalachian Georgia,

Fiscal Year 2020
HALL

FLOYD

CARROLL

POLK

BARTOW

GILMER

WALKER

ELBERT

HART

FANNIN

RABUN

UNION

MURRAY

GWINNETT

HEARD

GORDON

CHEROKEE

WHITE

JACKSON

BANKS

PAULDING

WHITFIELD

MADISON

LUMPKIN

FRANKLIN

FORSYTH

DADE

HARALSON

CHATTOOGA

PICKENS

DAWSON

TOWNS

DOUGLAS

HABERSHAM

BARROW

CATOOSA

STEPHENS

County Economic Status and Distressed Areas in

Appalachian Georgia, Fiscal Year 2020

G A 

0 15 30

Miles

Levels of 

Economic Status

Distressed County

At-Risk County

Distressed Area

Transitional County

Distressed Area

Competitive County

Attainment County

T N N C 

S C
___________

No. 96-2410

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Gerald Adolphus Wroten, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 10, 1996

 Filed: December 13, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we reject

Wroten's contention that the district court improperly assessed a

two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice. The district

court's sentence was correct and further discussion is not

warranted. We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2011013EN.01000202.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-458/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of Article 49 EC - Construction sector - Authorisation required in order to carry on activity in that sector - Justification)

2011/C 13/03

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and F. Nunes dos Santos, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Construction sector — Licence required in order to carry on activity in that sector

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by requiring providers of building services established in another Member State to satisfy all the requirements imposed by the national scheme at issue, and in particular by Decree-Law No 12/2004 of 9 January 2004, in order to obtain authorisation to exercise, in Portugal, an activity in the construction sector, thereby precluding the possibility of account being duly taken of equivalent obligations to which such providers are subject in the Member State in which they are established, or of the verifications already carried out in that regard by the authorities of that Member State, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by requiring providers of building services established in another Member State to satisfy all the requirements imposed by the national scheme at issue, and in particular by Decree-Law No 12/2004 of 9 January 2004, in order to obtain authorisation to exercise, in Portugal, an activity in the construction sector, thereby precluding the possibility of account being duly taken of equivalent obligations to which such providers are subject in the Member State in which they are established, or of the verifications already carried out in that regard by the authorities of that Member State, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4446 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4446

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Virgin Islands of the United States Centennial Commission 
  Act to extend the expiration date of the Commission, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

    The Virgin Islands of the United States Centennial Commission Act 
(Public Law 114-224) is amended--
            (1) in section 7(b), by striking ``January 31, 2018'' and 
        inserting ``January 31, 2019''; and
            (2) in section 10, by striking ``September 30, 2018'' and 
        inserting ``September 30, 2019''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 16, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4446

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Virgin Islands of the United States Centennial Commission 
  Act to extend the expiration date of the Commission, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6601

MOSES KING, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. JOHN DOES, various DEA Agents; JOHN DOES, various US Marshal Service Agents, Defendants – Appellees,

and JOHN DOE, Deputy; DEA AGENTS; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:07-cv-04155-DCN)

Submitted: July 20, 2009 Decided: August 19, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Moses King, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Moses King appeals the distr ict court’s orders: (1) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. King v.

John Does , No. 6:07-cv-04155-DCN (D.S.C. Feb. 4 & Feb. 19, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Per capita market income is a measure of an area's total 

personal income, less transfer payments, divided by the 

resident population of the area. The percent of the U.S. 

average is computed by dividing the county per capita 

market income by the national average and multiplying by 

100. The map uses critical breaks such as the national 

average to organize the data into groups of common values.

Map Created: March 2011

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2008

Relative Per Capita Market Income Rates in Appalachia, 2008

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

27.0% - 49.9%

50.0% - 74.9%

75.0% - 99.9% 

100.0% - 119.2%

Percent of the U.S. Average 

U.S. average = $34,004

Appalachian average = $25,391

(Critical Breaks Classification)
# C_2010134EN.01005003.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/50

---

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Papierfabrik Hamburger-Spremberg v Commission

(Case T-350/08) (1)

1

2010/C 134/82

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

1

---