alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kosteczko, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

*September 11*

October *6, 1953.*

*30For the appellant there was a brief and oral argument by *N. Paley Phillips*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Levitan.*

For the respondents State Fair Park, Inc., and United States Fidelity & Guaranty *Company there*was a brief by *Bendinger, Hayes & Kluwin,*attorneys, and *Donald J. Tikal-sky*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. John A. Kluwin*and *Mr. Tikalsky.*

Gehl, J.

The commission found, upon practically undisputed testimony:

> “That the deceased was employed by the respondent as an operator of a ride in an amusement park; that deceased was required to remain at his ride while the park was open and could only leave if a relief operator was nrovided; that the deceased left his ride without relief and took a ride on the adjacent ride, during which time he met his death; that by such action deceased deviated from the course of his employment; that the accident causing injury was not sustained in the course of and arising out of his employment for the respondent.”

It appears, also without dispute, that he rode on the “Whip” solely for his own amusement, and that he had no duties to perform in connection with its operation.

Where an employee is injured in the performance of an act in furtherance of his own purposes and without the scope of his employment, the master is not liable. *Peterman v. Industrial Comm.*228 Wis. 352, 280 N. W. 379. He may not recover for an injury received while doing work entirely *31different from that assigned him, against orders and for his own benefit. *Radtke Bros. & Korsch Co. v. Rutzinski,*174 Wis. 212, 183 N. W. 168.

Claimant contends that the case calls for application of the rule that when it is established that an employee has entered upon the performance of his duties and is found at a place where he might properly be in the discharge of his duties, nothing appearing to the contrary, the presumption of continuity of service obtains. The difficulty with that contention is that in this case there is something which appears to the contrary — deceased left his assigned place of employment without relief and took a ride on an adjacent device. By such action he deviated from the course of his employment. If the applicant were entitled to the benefit of the presumption, the evidence is more than sufficient to rebut it. *Armstrong v. Industrial Comm.*254 Wis. 174, 35 N. W. (2d) 212.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 1, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Consortium for Battery Innovation (“CBI”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Shenxian Hua Yang Industry Co. Ltd., Liao Cheng, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Camel Group Co. Ltd., Xiangyang, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and Luminous Power Technologies, Gurugram, INDIA, have been added as parties to this venture.                

Also, Boab Metals, Perth, AUSTRALIA; Digatron Power Electronics GmbH, Aachen, GERMANY; and NV Bekaert SA, Zwevegem, BELGIUM, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CBI intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On May 24, 2019, CBI filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 21, 2019 (84 FR 29241).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 18, 2024. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 28, 2024 (89 FR 54043).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-23661 Filed 10-11-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
# L_2011289EN.01001401.xml

| 8.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 289/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 289/14

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1121/2011

of 31 October 2011

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Native Shetland Wool (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘Native Shetland Wool’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘Native Shetland Wool’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 31 October 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 45, 12.2.2011, p. 21.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products listed in Annex II to the Regulation (EC) No 510/2006:

Class 3.6.   Wool

UNITED KINGDOM

Native Shetland Wool (PDO)

---
EXHIBIT 31
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hicks Acquisition Company I, Inc.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 Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report.4.
    
    I am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me
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 my 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; andc.
    
    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.
 5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my 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;
andb.
    
    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.
 /s/ JOSEPH B. ARMESJoseph B. ArmesPresident, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer(principal executive officer and principal financialofficer)May 15, 2008
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of MAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



/s/    TIMOTHY S. NELSONTimothy S. Nelson President, Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: August 3, 2009

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

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of MAP Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



/s/    CHRISTOPHER Y. CHAIChristopher Y. ChaiChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


Dated: August 3, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by MAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
 32 (i)



CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  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 report on Form 10-Q ofAbakan
 Inc. for thequarterly
 period endedNovember 30,
 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,Robert Miller,
 do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
 best of my knowledge and belief:



| | (1) | This 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:January
 29, 2010



/s/
 Robert Miller

Robert
 Miller, Chief Executive Officer



This
 certification accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
 required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933,
 as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective
 of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



36
Exhibit 99.12

CONSENT OF ENGINEER

Ladies and
Gentlemen:

The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report entitled Technical Report on the Midwest A Uranium Deposit of Saskatchewan, Canada dated January 31, 2008, and (2) all other references to the undersigned
included or incorporated by reference in the registration statement in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.

Dated: March 30, 2017



|                                                              |  |                   
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------
|By:                                                           |  | /s/ Michel Dagbert
|Michel Dagbert (Retired)                                     
|SGS Canada Inc. (formerly Geostat Systems International Inc.)
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned hereby certifies, in her capacity as an officer of Proteo, Inc. (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to her knowledge:





(1) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "Annual Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Date: March 14, 2011





/s/ Birge Bargmann


Birge Bargmann Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Financial Officer











A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO PROTEO, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY PROTEO, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.





THIS CERTIFICATION IS BEING FURNISHED PURSUANT TO RULE 15(D) AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED "FILED" FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 18 OF THE EXCHANGE ACT (15 U.S.C. 78R), OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE LIABILITY OF THAT SECTION. THIS CERTIFICATION SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO ANY FILING UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OR THE EXCHANGE ACT, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMPANY SPECIFICALLY INCORPORATES IT BY REFERENCE.
#### Wiedenhaupt, Respondent, vs. Hoelzel and another, Appellants.

*November 16*

December *15, 1948.*

*41For the appellants there was a brief by *Bassuener, Humke, Poole & Axel*of Sheboygan, and oral argument by *Paul L. Axel.*

*Allan C. Cain*of Kaukauna, for the respondent.

Broadfoot, J.

The appellants claim: (1) That the finding of the jury that Hoelzel’s negligent lookout was a proximate cause of the accident is not supported by credible evidence; (2) that deceased’s negligence was as great as or greater than Hoelzel’s negligence; and (3) that appellants are entitled to a new trial on the ground that the jury received a communication from the judge, not in open court.

As to the last contention, it is the well-settled rule in this state that all proceedings in a case shall be open and public; that any communication with the jury, after the case is submitted to them and they have retired for deliberation on their verdict, by any person, shall be in open court, and in the presence of the parties or their representatives, where practicable. The rule is strict and any deviation from the rule has generally been treated as sufficient ground for setting aside the verdict, even though, as here, the communication was not prompted by improper motives and even though it has not influenced the jury in arriving at their verdict. A defeated party should not be required to show that a communication not made in open court was in fact prejudicial. *Havenor v. State*(1905), 125 Wis. 444, 104 N. W. *116; Hurst v. Webster Mfg. Co.*(1906) 128 Wis. 342, 107 N. W. 666; *Ulrich v. Schwarz*(1929), 199 Wis. 24, 225 N. W. 195.

The respondent cites the case of *Dishmaker v. Heck*(1915), 159 Wis. 572, 150 N. W. 951. The facts in the *Dishmaker Case*are clearly distinguishable, as in that case the entire communication was in open court, was taken down by the reporter, and became a part of the record.

*42We hold that the communication had between the jury and the judge, through the reporter, is sufficient ground for setting aside the verdict and for ordering a new trial.

In view of the above determination we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the other points, except to state that the record shows they are questions for a jury.

*By the Court.*— The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24002]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 417 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-780, K2024-73.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24002 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
ADDENDUM NO.3

> ,

"

1._ -.

;;1i1r,~ ~_ ....•..:'1, ,,'

The following modifications are agreed to by the Parties and hereby made to the Agre~entt;[;)i~

f'v r---. "'1:"'1 ,_<...i

__:~~~,~;;l

The term of the agreement is extended from two years to two years and 84 days,w,ith utl!e.;:,<:;::'

.,,-,,'C,""-_

end date of the agreement being adjusted from May 2, 2014, to July 25, 2014. ;'~8;:;

, • >,,:,",,,, --~- ""-'1

The definition of year two in the agreement is now understood to mean the perio1t fro~"" .

May 3, 2013, through July 25, 2014.

This addendum modifies the Grant Agreement between the U.S. Department of Transportation

and the Manistee Blacker Airport Authority, in association with the Community of

Manistee/Ludington, Michigan, under the Alternative Essential Air Service Program

(Agreement), which was entered into by the Parties on May 3, 2012.

Replace Section 4, paragraph (c)(iv) with the following:

During the second year of service (May 3, 2013, through July 25,2014), DOT will pay

the Grantee $142.78 per passenger seat flown for up to 14,398 passenger seats, with a

maximum of 1,860 seats per month ($266,687 per month). ($2,055,781114,398).

The Parties agree and understand that the U.S. Department of Transportation will not provide

any additional reimbursements for start-up costs incurred for starting the service except for any

prorated funds returned to the Department pursuant to Section 4, paragraph (bXii).

Dated: Apr/Ill

7

,2014 Manistee Blacker Airport Authority

By: /2L~'

Paul D. Schulert .

Chairman

Manistee Blacker Airport Authority

Dated: '"I ".

V

, 2014 U.S. Department of Transportation

By:

Brandon Belford

Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Aviation and International Affairs
# L_2013138DE.01002001.xml

| 24.5.2013 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 138/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2013

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 138/20

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1129/2011 der Kommission vom 11. November 2011 zur Änderung des Anhangs II der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1333/2008 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates im Hinblick auf eine Liste der Lebensmittelzusatzstoffe der Europäischen Union

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 295 vom 12. November 2011
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 295 vom 12. November 2011

Seite 30, Nummer 06.6:

anstatt:

„Panaden“

muss es heißen:

„Rührteig“.

Seite 91, Kategorie-Nummer 06.6 Zeile 1:

anstatt:

„Panaden“

muss es heißen:

„Rührteig“.

Seite 91, Spalte 5 (Beschränkungen/Ausnahmen), dritte, vierte und fünfte Reihe:

anstatt:

„Nur Panaden zur Umhüllung“

muss es heißen:

„Nur Rührteig zur Umhüllung“.

---