alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 367I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 367I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6413 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 367I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6413 September 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2021/C 367 I/01 | Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1470, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1464 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 1 |
| 2021/C 367 I/02 | Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine apply | 3 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2021/C 367 I/01

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1470, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1464 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

1

2021/C 367 I/02

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine apply

3

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**CWA Section 401 Certification**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official

capacity as Attorney General of the United

States; et al.,

 Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS CHERRY

I, Nicholas Cherry, declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the

following statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge:

1. I am over 18 years of age and am competent to testify to the matters contained

herein.

2. I am an employee of Tactical Machining, LLC (“Tactical Machining”) and have

been since January 31, 2012. In that capacity I am familiar with Tactical Machining’s sales and

operations.

3. Since the implementation of the Final Rule in August of 2022, Tactical Machining

has been monitoring and collecting communications from its potential customers related to their

concerns about the impact of the Final Rule. Customers have continued to express concern that the

Final Rule does not permit them to purchase Tactical Machining’s products colloquially marketed

as “80% Lowers”, similar to the communications submitted with my Declaration on September 8,

2022. Customers have also expressed fears that the ATF will seize Tactical Machining’s records

to enforce the Final Rule against Tactical Machining’s customers.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 75-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 992
2 

4. After the Preliminary Injunction entered in this case on September 2, 2022, and

since my Declaration on September 8, 2022, sale of Tactical Machining products remains critically

below levels that were common before the implementation of the Final Rule. 

5. Prior to the implementation of the Final Rule, Tactical Machining had not had a 

month where we operated at a loss for several years. So far for the month of September 2022, 

however, our accountant has determined that Tactical Machining is operating a loss of over 

$36,000 for the month. 

6. If the sale of Tactical Machining products remains at this depressed level for the 

next few months, Tactical Machining would likely be forced out of business by the end of the year. 

DATED this 21st day of September, 2022. 

 

Nicholas Cherry

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 75-1 Filed 09/22/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 993
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          66,487
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  190,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    195,359
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               471,625
<PP&E>                                         413,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (50,309)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 972,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          284,201
<BONDS>                                        301,973
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           347
<OTHER-SE>                                     341,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   972,760
<SALES>                                        667,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               667,583
<CGS>                                          485,247
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  638,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (3,260)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,738
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,951
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,787
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,787
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .46<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
<FN>
<F1>Reflects Basic EPS
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY & 

VICTOR J. BOSCHINI, JR.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00297-O

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Appendix Under Seal 

(ECF No. 5), filed April 13, 2022. Courts presume that judicial records are to be kept open to the 

public. United States v. Abdullah, 2009 WL 2246156, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 24, 2009) (citing Nixon 

v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). But the public’s right to access court records 

is not absolute, and district courts have supervisory power to seal documents if the interest favoring 

nondisclosure outweighs the presumption in favor of the public’s common law right of access. 

SEC v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993); Test Masters Educ. Servs. Inc., 799 

F.3d 437, 454 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause to file the records under seal. 

Noting the motion is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of the 

Court to file the exhibit attached to the motion (ECF No. 5-1) under seal as Plaintiff’s Appendix.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of April, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 14 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 482
RECTISOL® Wash

RECTISOL® is a physical acid gas removal process using an

organic solvent (typically methanol) at subzero temperatures.

Commercial scale RECTISOL® wash units are operated world wide for the

purification of hydrogen, ammonia-, methanol syngas and the production of pure

carbon monoxide and oxogases.

RECTISOL® can purify synthesis gas down to 0,1 vppm total sulphur (including

COS) and CO2 in ppm range.

The main advantages of the process are the rather low utility consumption figures,

the use of a cheap and easily available solvent and the flexibility in process

configuration.

A simplified flow scheme of the RECTISOL® process is shown above. CO2 and

sulphur compounds are removed in separate fractions, resulting in a pure CO2

product (for example for urea production) and an H2S/COS enriched Claus gas

fraction. Due to the application of RECTISOL® in connection with various upstream

and downstream processes, a large design and operational experience is available

also regarding handling of trace components.

A special feature of the process are the coil-wound heat exchangers supporting

energy efficiency and plant economics. 

Due to the physical nature of the process high pressure and high sour gas

Linde AG, Engineering Division

Dr.-Carl-von-Linde-Strasse 6-14 

82049 Pullach 

Germany 

Phone +49 89 7445-3540

Fax +49 89 7445-4979

Email

Gas Processing Plants

(PDF 796 KB)

Downloads

2010.07.09 Rectisol Wash | Linde Engineering
Client:

Shanghai Coking & Chemical Corportation 

Process:

RECTISOL® wash 

Capacity:

Syngas 117.000 Nm3/h

78.500 Nm3/h

159.250 Nm3/h

Total 354.750 Nm3/h

concentrations are particularly favourable. RECTISOL® is therefore frequently

used to purify shifted, partially shifted or unshifted gas downstream residue oil-,

coal- or lignite gasification. Due to the low operation temperature RECTISOL® is

also favourable for cryogenic downstream processes, like liquid nitrogen wash,

cryogenic recovery of carbon monoxide and oxogas.

RECTISOL® was independently developed by Linde and Lurgi. The patents and

trade mark are used in common. 

Reference


Start-up:

1995/2002/2007

Linde AG, Engineering Division, Dr.-Carl-von-Linde-Str. 6-14 

82049 Pullach, Germany 

Phone +49.89.7445-0, Fax +49.89.7445-4908, Email: info@linde-le.com
#### Jeanne Jeras, as Administratrix of the Estate of Paul A. Jeras, Deceased, Appellant, v East Manufacturing Corp. et al., Appellants, and Hugh Cole Construction, Ltd., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court did not err in dismissing the complaint as against defendants Hugh Cole Construction, Ltd. and Robran Construction, Ltd. Although employees of Hugh Cole Construction loaded the trailer, there was no evidence that the distribution of the load or the method of loading played any part in the accident. Moreover, although one of the employees of Hugh Cole Construction may have previously suggested the route that Newco Waste Systems drivers used, this was a commonly used truck route and there was no evidence that it had proven unsafe in the past. There is no evidence to suggest that Robran Construction played any part in the loading of the trailer.

All concur, except Dillon, P. J., and Lawton, J., who dissent and vote to reverse and grant a new trial, in the following memorandum.

Dillon, P. J., and Lawton, J.

(dissenting). We respectfully dissent. Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’, Hugh Cole Construction and Robran Construction, motions for a directed verdict *(see,*CPLR 4401). Viewing the evidence, as we must, against those defendants in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and granting it the benefit of all reasonable inferences, we conclude that it was sufficient to withstand defendants’ motions for a directed verdict *(see, Cox v Don’s Welding Serv.,*58 AD2d 1013). Supreme Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs complaint against defendants Cole and Robran should be reversed and a new trial granted. (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — trial ? order of dismissal.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Lowery, JJ. *[See,*143 Mise 2d 188.]
EXHIBIT 32.1








Certification Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




The
following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 of Hub Group, Inc. pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and shall not be deemed filed
pursuant to any provision of the Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities
law.




Each of
the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Hub Group, Inc.




/s/David
      P. Yeager
              
              
              /s/Terri
      A. PizzutoName:
      David P. Yeager
              
              
              Name: Terri
      A. PizzutoTitle: Vice
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
              
              
              Title:
      Executive Vice President, Chief FinancialHub
      Group, Inc.
              
              
              Officer
      and TreasurerHub
      Group, Inc.
Case 1:22-cr-00054-H-BU Document 56 Filed 09/27/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 102
Case 1:22-cr-00054-H-BU Document 56 Filed 09/27/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 103
# Official Journal C 270/4 No

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 270 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 474 November 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 270

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 474 November 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | European Parliament |
| 2004/C 270/1 | Rules of procedure of the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

European Parliament

2004/C 270/1

Rules of procedure of the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      17,816,196
<SECURITIES>                                27,475,058
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,587,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                   486,000
<INVENTORY>                                 15,014,286
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            79,459,304
<PP&E>                                       9,674,748
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,366,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              92,593,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,005,351
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,304
<OTHER-SE>                                  83,579,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                92,593,756
<SALES>                                     13,020,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,020,587
<CGS>                                        5,698,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,507,288
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,750,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (468,375)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,467,171)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   478,971
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,946,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,946,142)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.97)
        

</TABLE>
Tej-Jet of Del LLC 

98 BYRAM SHORE ROAD 

GREENWICH, CT 06830 

Email: jackbart36@gmail.com Cell: (203) 921-6400 

6/3/2015 

US Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room W 12-140 

1200 New Jersey A venue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Request for Exemption 

To WhomltMay Concern, 

Via Certified Receipt Mail 

I am a "person" and owner/officer, requesting an exemption registered in the corporation Tej-Jet ofDelll.C, for my Morane Saulnier 

MS760 aircraft, bearing Serial# 89, at 98 Byram Shore Road Greenwich, CT 06830. This is an exemption to 14CFR, Federal Aviation 

Regulation 91.881, Civil subsonic jet airplanes weighing 75,000 pounds or less. This regulation is in regard to stage 3 noise compliance. 

Effective date December 31,2015. 

In the docket for rule making for this regulatory change, this make and model was excluded from the FAA analysis. The docket number 

is FAA-2013-0503; Arndt. No. 91.328. 

This make and model airplane has a gross weight of8,750 pounds and thereby is a small aircraft, under 12,500 pounds. This aircraft is a 

twin engine jet powered airplane. This airplane was certified in the United States July 1958. Type Certificate number 7A3. 

This airplane is clearly listed in FAA Advisory Circular 36-3H. change 1, dated 5/25/2012, Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in 

A-Weighed Decibels. The data provided in this ACwas provided by DGAC (French Aviation Authority) as noted in the AC. The noise 

levels are within the stage 3 noise compliance requirements. The operation ofthese aircraft will not be in any conflict with stage 3 noise 

regulations. 

The FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual does not contain data regarding Stage 3 compliance. The present flight manual is dated 

April1963. This exemption has no effect on safety. 

This airplane is the first Very Light Jet (VIJ) and has historical roots. These airplanes operate for personal transportation of their 

respective owners and also are frequently taken to "Airshows" for display to the general public. 

This new regulation takes effect December 31, 2015. Exemption to this regulation is needed before this date to allow for recurrent 

training and normal operations of these airplanes in the National Airspace System 

Summary: An Exemption is hereby granted to Morane Saulnier MS760, Serial #89, owned by Tej-Jet ofDelll.C, at 98 Byram Shore 

Road Greenwich, CT 06830, and this exemption is to operate this Morane Saulnier MS760 series aircraft to and from any suitable 

airports in the contiguous United States. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 22279.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 11, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Dee. 16, 1942.

Curtis Renfro, of Vernon, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for murder, punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without bills of exception or statement of facts. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

On November 11, 1942, this judgment was affirmed, there being at that time no statement of facts in the record and no bills of exception. It is now made to appear that the original statement of facts was filed in the trial court within the time permitted by law, after having been properly approved by the trial judge. A certificate of the clerk of the trial court shows that it was by oversight on her part that the statement of facts was not forwarded, and that such oversight was in no way to be attributed to appellant or his attorney. Notwithstanding the statement of facts reaches this court after the expiration of the fifteen days allowed for filing of motions for rehearing we have concluded to consider the same in connection with appellant’s motion for rehearing for the reason that the only question before us is a *732claim that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment.

After a close examination of the statement of facts we are not in accord with appellant’s contention. The evidence shows that both deceased, Ward. Dodson, and appellant bore bad reputations for peace and quietude in the community in which they lived; deceased having served a term in the penitentiary for having killed a man. If appellant’s testimony had been accepted by the jury it might have presented a case of self defense, but evidence for the State is to the contrary, and although the facts are somewhat confused it was the province of the jury to pick out from the maze of testimony that which they believed, and which if accepted, was sufficient to support the verdict.

Therefore, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CARBONE’S FINE FOODS AND WINES, 

LLC

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARBONE RESTAURANT LLC, 

CARBONE FINE FOOD LLC, THE 

MAJOR FOOD GROUP LLC, and MAJOR 

INTELLECTUAL LLC,

 Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-01184-E 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

Defendants Carbone Fine Food LLC, The Major Food Group LLC, and Major Intellectual 

LLC (“Defendants”) hereby file this Motion, and request (1) that Jeremy Fielding, Jonathan David 

Kelley and Ruben Alan Garcia with the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP be withdrawn as counsel 

of record in the above-captioned case, and (2) that John T. Cox III, Howard S. Hogan, Orin Snyder 

and Rachael Kathleen Jensen of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP be substituted in as attorneys of 

record for Defendants in the above-captioned matter. This Motion is filed with the express 

authorization of Defendants and there is no opposition to this Motion. Defendants also hereby 

designate John T. Cox III as lead attorney. 

Please update service lists, and direct all future filings, discovery, and correspondence to 

the undersigned counsel. 

Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 20 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 710
 2 

Dated: August 1, 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ John T. Cox III 

 John T. Cox III 

 Texas Bar No. 24003722 

 Rachael Kathleen Jensen 

 Texas Bar No. 24128195 

 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100 

Dallas, Texas 75201-2911 

Telephone: (214) 698-3100 

TCox@gibsondunn.com 

RJensen@gibsondunn.com 

Howard S. Hogan (pro hac vice pending) 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

1050 Connecticut Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 887-3640 

HHogan@gibsondunn.com 

Orin Snyder (pro hac vice pending) 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

200 Park Ave. 

New York, New York 10166 

Telephone: (212) 351-2400 

OSnyder@gibsondunn.com 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 20 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 711
 3 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

 I certify that I conferred with counsel for all parties and there is no opposition to this 

Motion for Substitution of Counsel. 

Dated: August 1, 2022 

By: /s/ John T. Cox III 

John T. Cox III 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on this 1st day of August, 2022, I electronically submitted a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing document with the clerk of the court of the U.S. District Court for 

the Northern District of Texas using the electronic case files system of the court. 

Dated: August 1, 2022 

By: /s/ John T. Cox III 

John T. Cox III 

Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 20 Filed 08/01/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 712