alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-11-462-E 

September 29, 2011 

 Exemption No. 8676C 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2005-22250 

Mr. Eric Lambert 

Vice President/Director of Operations 

NetJets Aviation, Inc. 

4111 Bridgeway Avenue 

Columbus, OH 43219 

Dear Mr. Lambert: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 8676, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the 

conditions and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated September 15, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of NetJets Aviation, Inc. (NetJets), for an extension of Exemption No. 8676, 

as amended. That exemption from § 91.205(b)(12) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

allows NetJets to operate over water and beyond power-off gliding distance from shore 

without at least one pyrotechnic signaling device. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to NetJets. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8676, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions 

and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Each flight operated under this exemption must be conducted in compliance with 

§§ 121.125(a)(1), (2), (c) and (d); 121.127(a)(1), (2), and (b); 121.597(a), (b), and (c); 

and 121.689(a), (b), and (c). 

2. Each flight operated under part 135 must be conducted in accordance with NetJets 

operations specifications. 

3. Each flight operated under part 91K must be conducted in accordance with NetJets 

management specifications. 

4. Prior to conducting operations under this exemption, NetJets must obtain amended 

operations specifications, and management specifications listing this exemption. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8676, as amended, to 

January 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 
 3
Exhibit
10.48


AMENDMENT
TO


PUGET
SOUND ENERGY, INC.


SUPPLEMENTAL
DEATH BENEFIT PLAN


FOR
EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES




This
Amendment is made to the Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Supplemental Death Benefit
Plan for Executive Employees (the "Plan").  All terms defined in the
Plan shall have the same meanings when used herein.  This amendment is
effective November 1, 2007.  All provisions of the Plan not amended by
this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.




1.           Section
1.12 ("Participant") is amended by deleting the last sentence
thereof.




2.           Section
2.3 ("When Participation Ends") is amended to read as follows:




2.3           When
Participation Ends




A
Participant's participation in this Plan shall end on the earliest of the dates
set forth below:




(a)
            The
      date this Plan is terminated under
  Article 4;




(b)
            The
      date he or she no longer qualifies as a
  Participant;




(c)
            The
      date of his or her death; and




(d)
            The
      date his or her employment with all Employers terminates for any
      reason.




3.           Section
3.1 ("Benefit Amount") is amended to read as follows:




3.1.           Benefit
Amount




In the
event a Participant dies after the termination of his or her employment with all
Employers (due to retirement or any other reason), neither the Participant nor
his or her Beneficiary shall be entitled to a benefit under this
Plan.  In the event a Participant dies before the termination of his
or her employment with all Employers, the Beneficiary shall be paid a single sum
amount equal to two times Earnings, determined as of the date of the
Participant's death and reduced by the amount of the core life insurance payable
pursuant to any Employer-sponsored group life insurance plan.  No
other benefit shall be payable under this Plan.




IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Amendment as of the effective
date set forth above.









PUGET
SOUND ENERGY, INC.
  
  
 By: /s/ Marla D.
Mellies
 Name:
Marla D. Mellies
 Title:
Vice President Human Resources
No. 11-9914.

#### Pena *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### Steve KLEIN; Howard Putnam; Glen Biondi, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH; Does, 1 through 10, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56309

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*767Submitted February 6, 2018 * Pasadena, California

Filed February 08, 2018

William Gillespie, Bonsall, CA, Michael J. Kumeta, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Michael J. Kumeta, La Mesa, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Philip D. Kohn, Esquire, Attorney, Viet Thai Phan, Esquire, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel, unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). •

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part their motion for attorneys fees. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that the district court erred by reducing their requested hours by 45 percent so that the disparity between the parties’ hours would match that in *Democratic Party of Washington State v. Reed,*388 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2004).

“[W]hen faced with a massive fee application the district court has the authority to make across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure as a practical means of trimming the fat from a fee application.” Gates *v. Deukmejian,*987 F.2d 1392, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, when the across-the-board cut is greater than 10 percent, “the district court must explain why it chose to cut the number of hours or the lodestar by the specific percentage it did.” *Gonzalez v. City of Maywood,*729 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2013).

The district court cut Plaintiffs’ hours by 45 percent so that the City’s hours would be 75 percent of Plaintiffs’ adjusted hours — the same ratio that happened to exist in *Reed,*a case in which this court granted fees on appeal in the full amount requested and refused to reduce them so as to achieve a more favorable ratio for the defendant or for any other reason. 388 F.3d at 1287-88. Here, the district court erred. *Reed*in no way established a target ratio for district courts to meet. To the contrary, “[ajlthough opposing counsel’s billing records may be relevant to determining whether the prevailing party spent a reasonable number of hours on the case, those records are not dispositive.” *Gonzalez,*729 F.3d at 1202.

Because the district court’s explanation for the reduction in fees was based on a misunderstanding of *Reed,*we vacate and remand the district court’s fee award. We need not and do not reach any of Plaintiffs’ other contentions on appeal. Nor do we resolve the City’s arguments based on Plaintiffs’ alleged limited success, although they appear to have little merit. Because the arguments seek a modification of the judgment in the City’s favor, they should have been brought on cross-appeal. *Gilliam v. Nevada Power Co.,*488 F.3d 1189, 1192 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007).

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6287]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis 
Panel:

    Agenda/Purpose: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: March 17, 1997.
    Time: 9:30 a.m.
    Place: Parklawn, Room 9C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20857.
    Contact Person: Sheri L. Schwartzback, Parklawn, Room 9C-26, 
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-4843.

    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: March 25, 1997.
    Time: 1 p.m.
    Place: Parklawn, Room 9C-18, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20857.
    Contact Person: Jean K. Paddock, Parklawn, Room 9C-18, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-4868.
    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than fifteen days prior to 
the meetings due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.242, 
93.281, 93.282)
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 97-6287 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
1

EAC Decision on Transmission of Results 2012-02

(Official and Unofficial Results)

Date: 

May 30, 2012

Question:

What is the distinction between official and unofficial results? 

Section of Guidelines:

2005 VVSG Volume 1 Sections 2, 6, and 7

2005 VVSG Volume 2 Sections 1, 2, 6, and Appendix A

Discussion:

The 2005 VVSG requirements for voting systems using telecommunications technologies to 

broadcast results can be divided into two categories; official and unofficial results. The 2005 

VVSG does not supply a definition for either term. Historically, voting system manufacturers 

declared if their system transmitted official and/or unofficial results, and their systems were 

tested to the applicable requirements. When voting systems are fielded, the election jurisdictions

using the voting system ultimately decide how results are treated on election night. Therefore, 

the distinction between official and unofficial results is procedural, not technical. 

Conclusion:

The EAC cannot enforce the distinction between official and unofficial results. Each election 

jurisdiction using a voting system with telecommunications capabilities follows state and local 

election administration practices the EAC cannot anticipate during testing. Voting systems using 

telecommunications technologies shall be tested to all telecommunications requirements for the 

technology (i.e., wired or wireless), without distinction between official and unofficial results. This 

decision ensures EAC certified voting systems adhere to the 2005 VVSG in any manner election 

officials choose to use the voting system.

Effective Date: 

Effective immediately for all systems without an approved Test Report.
# C_2023271EN.01002602.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories v EUIPO — Arbora & Ausonia (InterMed Pharmaceutical Laboratories eva intima)

(Joined Cases T-197/22 and T-198/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative marks InterMed Pharmaceutical Laboratories eva intima - Earlier EU and national word marks EVAX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 271/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories SA (Athens, Greece) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.-V. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Arbora & Ausonia, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Re:

By its actions under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 March 2022 in Case R 1244/2021-1 and in Case R 1245/2021-1.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 March 2022 in Case R 1244/2021-1 in so far as the ‘toiletries; body cleaning preparations; cleaning preparations’ in Class 3 and the ‘hygienic preparations; sanitary preparations for medical purposes’ in Class 5 are concerned; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 March 2022 in Case R 1244/2021-1 in so far as the ‘toiletries; body cleaning preparations; cleaning preparations’ in Class 3 and the ‘hygienic preparations; sanitary preparations for medical purposes’ in Class 5 are concerned;

| 2. | Dismisses the action in Case T-197/22 as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action in Case T-197/22 as to the remainder;

| 3. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2022 in Case R 1245/2021-1; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2022 in Case R 1245/2021-1;

| 4. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs in Case T-197/22; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs in Case T-197/22;

| 5. | Orders EUIPO and Arbora & Ausonia, SL to pay the costs incurred by Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories SA in Case T-198/22. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders EUIPO and Arbora & Ausonia, SL to pay the costs incurred by Ioulia and Irene Tseti Pharmaceutical Laboratories SA in Case T-198/22.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

---
| (logo) ncb  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011 Crystal Drive  Suite, 8oo  Arlington, VA 22202 |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|

 

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor 

Attn: AJ Sfarra

375 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor 

J0127-023

New York, NY 10152

 

RE: Annual Statement as toCompliance 

WFCM 2015 C26

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

In accordance with the Poolingand Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of theCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C26, as an authorizedofficer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “NCBMaster Servicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.12 thereofthat:

 

a. A review of the activitiesof the NCB Master Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the“Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b. To the best of myknowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Master Servicer has fulfilled allobligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

Please note that the annualfinancial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31,2017.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

/s/ Karyn Man

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President,Investor Compliance

National Cooperative Bank,N.A.
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit 10(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 22 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-145531) pertaining to Lincoln New York Account N for Variable Annuities, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 21 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141752) and Amendment No. 260 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 1, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N for Variable Annuities for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.













/s/ Ernst & Young LLP












Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


April 1, 2014
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 30451

AUGUST WALTER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

BP AMERICA, INCORPORATED,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:12

- CV

- 177

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK

, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Having heard oral argument and reviewed the parties’ briefs and the

record on appeal, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court essentially for

the reasons given in that court’s Order and Reasons on Motions.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limi ted circumstances set forth in 5 TH

C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

February 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk Case: 14-30451 Document: 00512936006 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2015
# C_2023045EN.01000401.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/4

---

Appeal brought on 2 June 2022 by Ahmad Aziz against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 31 May 2022 in Case T-128/22, Aziz v EDPS

(Case C-357/22 P)

(2023/C 45/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ahmad Aziz (represented by: L. Cuschieri, avukat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Data Protection Supervisor

By order of 19 December 2022, The Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr Ahmad Aziz shall bear his own costs.

---
# C_2023286EN.01002502.xml

| 14.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2023 — Hofmeir Magnetics v EUIPO — Healthfactories (Hofmag)

(Case T-452/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Hofmag - Earlier non-registered word mark HOFMAG - Relative ground for refusal - No use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 286/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hofmeir Magnetics Ltd (Witney, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baur, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Healthfactories GmbH (Saaldorf-Surheim, Germany) (represented by C. Vischer, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 May 2022 (Case R 1367/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hofmeir Magnetics Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Healthfactories GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hofmeir Magnetics Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Healthfactories GmbH;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022

---
Errata Note: 2020 EAVS Comprehensive Report and Accompanying Datasets

October 8, 2021

Rhode Island requested to make corrections to its data submissions for the 2020 EAVS following the 

initial publication of the comprehensive report and dataset on August 16, 2021. These corrections 

are documented below.

2020 Election Administration and Voting Survey Dataset

The corrections listed below are reflected in Version 1.1 of the 2020 EAVS dataset released on 

October 8, 2021.

• All Rhode Island jurisdictions provided updated early voting numbers for D1b.

• Four Rhode Island jurisdictions updated D1a data (in-person voting at a physical polling place 

on Election Day), statewide D1a total did not change. 

• In three Rhode Island jurisdictions, data that was previously reported in F1d (voters who cast 

a domestic civilian by-mail ballot, and whose ballots were counted) has been moved to F1f

(voters who cast a ballot at an in-person early voting location, and whose ballots were 

counted).

• Five Rhode Island jurisdictions updated their data in F1a (total number of voters who cast a 

ballot that was counted), F1b (voters who cast a ballot at a physical polling place on Election 

Day, and whose ballots were counted), and F1e (voters who cast a provisional ballot, and 

whose ballots were counted). Statewide totals for F1a, F1b, and F1e did not change.

• The footnotes and table notes on page 15 (Footnote 23), page 31 (Table Note 1), and page 42 

(Table Note 1) are amended on Rhode Island’s early voting data (see table below). 

Election Administration and Voting Survey: 2020 Comprehensive Report

Section of Report Page Currently Reads Should Read

Chapter 1 15, Footnote 23

“... Rhode Island did 

not report data in 

F1f...”

“Rhode Island allows Emergency In Person voting 

to voters who state they cannot make it to the 

polls on election day. Voters can cast their ballot 

into a tabulator beginning 20 days prior to the 

election and ending the day before the election.”

Chapter 1 31, Table Note 1

“... Rhode Island did 

not report data in 

F1f...”

“Rhode Island allows Emergency In Person voting 

to voters who state they cannot make it to the 

polls on election day. Voters can cast their ballot 

into a tabulator beginning 20 days prior to the 

election and ending the day before the election.”

Chapter 1 42, Table Note 1

“... Rhode Island did 

not report data in 

F1f...”

“Rhode Island allows Emergency In Person voting 

to voters who state they cannot make it to the 

polls on election day. Voters can cast their ballot 

into a tabulator beginning 20 days prior to the 

election and ending the day before the election.”

Note: Printed versions of the report will not be adjusted to reflect updates listed in the table.