alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005006EN.01004101.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/41

---

Action brought on 11 October 2004 by José Antonio Carreira against the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

(Case T-421/04)

(2005/C 6/80)

Language of the case: French

An action against the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 October 2004 by José Antonio Carreira, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Agency's decision awarding the applicant part only of the differential allowance mentioned in Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations as a result of his being called upon to occupy a temporary posting between 13 January 2003 and 15 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Agency's decision awarding the applicant part only of the differential allowance mentioned in Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations as a result of his being called upon to occupy a temporary posting between 13 January 2003 and 15 August 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay the balance of the differential allowance payable under Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the balance of the differential allowance payable under Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case who, like the defendant's legal adviser, was called upon to occupy temporarily the duties of the Agency's head of administration, because the holder of that post was absent on sick leave, challenges the appointing authority's decision to divide the amount of the differential allowance between the two persons who filled the temporary posting. He responded to that decision by stating that he did not accept that he had worked part-time in replacing the head of administration and that, in consequence, he was entitled to the whole of the differential allowance in dispute.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations, and breach of the principles of correspondence between the grade and the post, of non-discrimination and of proportionality.

He also considers that the duty to state the reasons on which an act is based was not complied with in the circumstances.

---
ACCEPTED

12-14-00336-CV

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

9/14/2015 4:35:47 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 RECEIVED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/14/2015 4:35:47 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
| Subsidiary      Name                                |   | State      of Organization or Incorporation |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
| Wilhelmina      International, Ltd.                 |   | New      York                               |
| Wilhelmina      West, Inc.                          |   | California                                  |
| LW1,      Inc.                                      |   | California                                  |
| Wilhelmina      Models, Inc.                        |   | New      York                               |
| Wilhelmina      Kids & Creative Management LLC* |   | New      York                               |
| Wilhelmina-Miami,      Inc.                         |   | Florida                                     |
| Wilhelmina      Artist Management LLC               |   | New      York                               |
| Wilhelmina      Licensing LLC                       |   | Delaware                                    |
| Wilhelmina      Film & TV Productions LLC       |   | Delaware                                    |
SERVED OCTOBER 21, 2011 

."^EPARR^ENTOF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION M-^AN'SPORTAT!ON 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS "rCKET OPERATIONS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Z0!1 CCT ? 1 P J: 12 

In The Matter Of: 

SUNSTATE 

PROPELLER, INC. 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. [To Be Assigned] 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0780 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On October 18, 2011 the Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), filed a Withdrawal of Complaint with the Office of Hearings. The Withdrawal of 

Complaint stated that the parties had reached a settlement, and that the FAA withdrew the 

complaint pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.215. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.215, this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

JH;:^. suiiivm 

U.S/'AdTfiinistrative Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 
FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0780 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000' 

ONE COPY 

Michael A. Hanson, Respondent's Counsel 

HANSON Law Office 

2501 North Orient Road, Suite D 

Tampa, FL 33619 

TEL: 813-626-7304 

FAX: 813-621-6901 

Andrea Michelle Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Southern Region . 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 -... . . 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: .202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30.
# C_2004181EN.01000301.xml

| 14.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 181/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

13 July 2004

(2004/C 181/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2372 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4358 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6647 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2048 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5206 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,22 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4735 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5819 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,483 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,65 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6616 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4261 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,47 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 920 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,86 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,999 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 779 300 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7034 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6345 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6499 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8757 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1017 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 422,47 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,521 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2372

JPY

Japanese yen

133,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4358

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6647

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2048

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5206

ISK

Iceland króna

88,22

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4735

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5819

CZK

Czech koruna

31,483

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,65

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6616

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4261

PLN

Polish zloty

4,47

ROL

Romanian leu

40 920

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,86

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,999

TRL

Turkish lira

1 779 300

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7034

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6345

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6499

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8757

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1017

KRW

South Korean won

1 422,47

ZAR

South African rand

7,521

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2005132EN.01002502.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/25

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 17 March 2005

in Case T-160/03 AFCon Management Consultants and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Tacis Programme - Invitation to tender - Irregularities in the tendering procedure - Action for damages)

(2005/C 132/46)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-160/03: AFCon Management Consultants, established in Bray (Ireland), Patrick Mc Mullin, resident in Bray, Seamus O'Grady, resident in Bray, represented by B. O'Connor, solicitor, and I. Carreño, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Enegren and F. Hoffmeister, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of irregularities in the tendering procedure for a project financed by the Tacis programme (‘Project FDRUS 9902 — Agricultural extension services in South Russia’) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Orders the Commission to pay AFCon the sum of EUR 48 605, together with interest thereon from delivery of this judgment until full payment. The rate of interest to be applied is to be calculated on the basis of the European Central Bank's rate for its main refinancing operations, in force during the period concerned, plus two percentage points. The amount of interest is to be calculated on the basis of compound interest; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Commission to pay AFCon the sum of EUR 48 605, together with interest thereon from delivery of this judgment until full payment. The rate of interest to be applied is to be calculated on the basis of the European Central Bank's rate for its main refinancing operations, in force during the period concerned, plus two percentage points. The amount of interest is to be calculated on the basis of compound interest;

| 2. | Dismisses the application as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the application as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200 of 23.8.2003.

1

---
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K
      for
      the period ending July 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C, ss. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,





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





2)
            the
                information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the
                financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.





By/s/
                Arthur L. SmithArthur
                L. SmithPresident
                andChief
                Executive OfficerOctober
                29, 2008
# C_2005115EN.01000802.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/8

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 17 February 2005

in Case C-250/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia in Giorgio Emanuele Mauri v Ministero della Giustizia, Commissione per gli esami di avvocato presso la Corte d'appello di Milano (1)

1

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Access to the profession of advocate - Rules on the examination for authorisation to practise as an advocate)

(2005/C 115/17)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-250/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia, (Italy), made by decision of 13 November 2002, received at the Court on 11 June 2003, in the proceedings between Giorgio Emanuele Mauri and Ministero della Giustizia, Commissione per gli esami di avvocato presso la Corte d'appello di Milano — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 17 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 43 EC do not preclude a rule, such as that laid down by Article 22 of Royal Decree-Law No 1578 of 27 November 1933, in the version applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, which provides that, in connection with the examination regulating access to the profession of advocate, the examination committee is to be composed of five members appointed by the Minister for Justice, namely two judges, a professor of law and two advocates, the latter being nominated by the Consiglio nazionale forense (National Bar Council) on a joint proposal by the bar councils of the district concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Henry E.
Gemino, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of Profile
Technologies, Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.


Date: September 25, 2008                        /s/ Henry E. Gemino
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Henry E. Gemino
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
No. 82-6063.

#### Schlomann *v.*Ralston, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2005088EN.01000801.xml

| 12.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3664 — Repsol Butano/Shell Gass (LPG))

(2005/C 88/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 2 March 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3664. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3664. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
## Anaconda-Pintler - Worst - Total Extinction Anaconda-Pintler - Worst - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N Total Extinction Site Method Year N NO 3 Extinction SULA1 NIA 2001 24 35.73 SULA1 NIA 2001 24 1.26 SULA1 NIA 2002 24 34.21 SULA1 NIA 2002 24 1.58 SULA1 NIA 2003 23 66.3 SULA1 NIA 2003 23 1.57 SULA1 NIA 2004 24 33.84 SULA1 NIA 2004 24 1.45 

## 170.08 Total 5.86 Total

42.52 Average 1.465 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 3% Anaconda-Pintler - Best - Total Extinction Anaconda-Pintler - Best - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N Total Extinction Site Method Year N NO 3 Extinction SULA1 NIA 2001 23 13.62 SULA1 NIA 2001 23 0.43 SULA1 NIA 2002 23 13.15 SULA1 NIA 2002 23 0.39 SULA1 NIA 2003 22 11.99 SULA1 NIA 2003 22 0.18 SULA1 NIA 2004 23 13.19 SULA1 NIA 2004 23 0.36 

## 51.95 Total 1.36 Total 12.9875 Average 0.34 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 3% Gates of the Mountains - Worst - Total Extinction Gates of the Mountains - Worst - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N Total Extinction Site Method Year N NO 3 Extinction GAMO1 NIA 2001 24 30.3 GAMO1 NIA 2001 24 1.94 GAMO1 NIA 2002 23 29.29 GAMO1 NIA 2002 23 1.76 GAMO1 NIA 2003 22 37.15 GAMO1 NIA 2003 22 2.28 GAMO1 NIA 2004 23 30.65 GAMO1 NIA 2004 23 1.52 

## 127.39 Total 7.5 Total 31.8475 Average 1.875 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 6% Gates of the Mountains - Best - Total Extinction Gates of the Mountains - Best - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N Total Extinction Site Method Year N NO 3 Extinction GAMO1 NIA 2001 23 12.03 GAMO1 NIA 2001 23 0.5 GAMO1 NIA 2002 22 12.56 GAMO1 NIA 2002 22 0.63 GAMO1 NIA 2003 21 10.92 GAMO1 NIA 2003 21 0.27 GAMO1 NIA 2004 22 12.13 GAMO1 NIA 2004 22 0.54 

## 47.64 Total 1.94 Total 11.91 Average 0.485 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 4%
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02096]



[[Page 6093]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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: Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases Initial Review Group; Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and 
Skin Diseases Clinical Trials Review Committee.
    Date: March 10-11, 2015.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20817.
    Contact Person: Charles H Washabaugh, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer Scientific Review Branch NIAMS/NIH, 6701 Democracy 
Boulevard, Suite 816, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4952, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbccdac8d3dad9dad8fbd6dad2d795d5d2d395dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0c7d1c3d8d1d2d1d3f0ddd1d9dc9eded9d89ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 29, 2015.
Carolyn Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-02096 Filed 2-3-15; 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>
.. 

.. Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 06064 

FURTHER NOTES ON NSAM 156 ARMS CONTROL PAPER I 

I 

Although the paper euphemistically refers to "observa,tion 

satellites," it also seems to imply very strongly that all that is !' 

being referred to is photographic satellites. This, of course, 

I" comprises only one part, although perhaps the most ;important part of 

I 

the NRO program, since we also have satellites collecting ELi NT , ' 

COMINT and telemetry. I 

It would be foolhardy for us to 

disclose some of these as yet undeployed capabilities in their 

\ / 

entirety, and yet to be thoroughly 'I' convincing aboup our capabilities 

",!,ithout on-site inspection, it is necessary to consider these and 

other intelligence pollection methods in their entirety.' 

The NSAM 156 p~per, while it refers to the SNIE, really fails 

to appreciate that satellite reconnaissance is only one of several 

~ 

methods by which we are expected to be able to detect certain types 

of violations of the proposed arms control agreement. A great deal 

is made in the SNIE of our current capabilities (and extensions 

thereoJ) to collect telemetry and observe reentry of Soviet missile 

tests. Much of this collection is from sensitive locations in 

countries on the Soviet borders. We would not propose now, I presume, 

to disclose in detail that we intend to use such sites to police 

the arms control agreement even though I am sure that from an 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 06064 
Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 06064, 

intelligence standpoint the Soviets are at least as aware of them 

as are our newspapers. 

W~ obviously should, leave our options as wide open as possible 

with respect to ~hoosing, when the need for evidence arises, the 

elements of intelligence information which can best make our 

point with the Sov~ets, the United Nations, the Congress or the 

United States publ~c as the case may be. With miniwum compromise 

to intelligence collection methods, to !specifically single out one 

Qr same intelligenee collection methods now and to pass in our ~j • 

'discussions with either the Soviets o-d our own Congress ~nd public , );' , 

Qply those chosen m~thods, is not only dangerous hut is misleading , 

and may at a latert=ime evolve into ~ "credibility gap." 

As a fallback;:position, if we ibsist on mentioning satellites, 

it would seem that we should refer to satellite intelligenc~: 

collection rather than observation satellites, since this would 

span the whole gamut from VELA to GAMBIT and would be nearer to 

the truth. It would also allow us greater flexibility in the future 

in the development of new sensors ito claim that they too were a 

part of what we counted on, and would most nearly conform to the 

kind of security cover which we have also provided to the NRO via 

- the classified satellite program. 

Dr. Elaxfs' comments /Septerpber 1968 ~ 

2 

.. 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/02 C051 06064