alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 12662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6538]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[NM-910-07-1020-00]


New Mexico Resource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of council meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 
Appendix 1, The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM), announces a meeting of the New Mexico Resource Advisory Council 
(RAC). The meeting will be held on April 24 and 25, 1997 at the New 
Mexico Activities Association building, 6600 Palomas Av NE, 
Albuquerque, NM. This location is near the Amberley Suites Hotel in 
Albuquerque, NM.
    The agenda for the RAC meeting will include agreement on the 
meeting agenda, any RAC comments on the draft summary minutes of the 
last RAC meeting of January 9 and 10, 1997 in Albuquerque, NM., an 
update and discussion on the status of the Resource Management Plan 
Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement for the RAC Standards for 
Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing, and discussions 
by the RAC on off road vehicle use and access to BLM lands and other 
items appropriate for RAC discussion. The meeting will begin on April 
24, 1997 at 8:00 a.m. The meeting is open to the public. The time for 
the public to address the RAC is on Thursday, April 24, 1997, from 3:00 
p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The RAC may reduce or extend the end time of 5:00 
p.m. depending on the number of people wishing to address the RAC. The 
length of time available for each person to address the RAC will be 
established at the start of the public comment period and will depend 
on how many people there are that wish to address the RAC. At the 
completion of the public comments the RAC may continue discussion on 
its Agenda items. The meeting on April 25, 1997, will be from 8:00 a.m. 
to 4:00 p.m. The end time of 4:00 p.m. for the meeting may be changed 
depending on the work remaining for the RAC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Armstrong, New Mexico State 
Office, Planning and Policy Team, Bureau of Land Management, 1474 Rodeo 
Road, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-0115, telephone (505) 
438-7436.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Resource Advisory Council 
is to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a 
variety of planning and management issues associated with the 
management of public lands. The Council's responsibilities include 
providing advice on long-range planning, establishing resource 
management priorities and assisting the BLM to identify State and 
regional standards for rangeland health and guidelines for grazing 
management.

    Dated: March 10, 1997.
William C. Calkins,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 97-6538 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Cabinet Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2003 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date:  November 10, 2003
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, John D. Ball, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofMayor’s Jewelers, Inc., certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mayor’s Jewelers,Inc.;
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this annual report is being prepared;
 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
 (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 5, 2004        /s/ John D. Ball  John D. Ball  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11946-11947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6258]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

March 6, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

SPECIAL REQUEST: In order to begin the survey described below in late 
March 1997, the Department of the Treasury is requesting that the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approve this 
information collection by March 18, 1997. To obtain a copy of this 
study, please contact the Internal Revenue Service Clearance Officer at 
the address listed below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1432.
    Project Number: M:SP:V 97-007-G.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: IRS Appeals Process Customer Satisfaction Survey.
    Description: The National Director of Appeals anticipates that 
approximately 72,000 taxpayers will avail themselves of the Appeals 
process over the next year. This translates into about 6,000 closed 
cases each month, on average. This survey will incorporate three 
mailouts: (1) An initial mailout; (2) a second mailout to those who 
failed to respond within three weeks after all initial requests have 
been mailed; and (3) a third mailout to those who fail to respond 
within three weeks after the second mailout. All questionnaires will be 
returned to the Office of the National Director of Appeals in the 
National Office. Results will be used to evaluate how the Office of 
Appeals can improve its performance and reduce taxpayer burden by 
providing better customer service.

[[Page 11947]]

    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,000.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 4 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Other.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 400 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building. 
Washington, DC 20503.
Dale A. Morgan,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-6258 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Kevin MURPHY, administrator of the ESTATE of Lawrence Martin PAYNE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 04-6265-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: Oct. 6, 2005.

Decided: Oct. 19, 2005.

*159Justin T. Green, New York, N.Y. (Jacqueline M. James, Kreindler *&*Kreindler, LLP, New York, N.Y.; Richard A. Bieder. Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C., Bridgeport, Conn., on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Sandra S. Glover, Asst. U.S. Atty.,New Haven, Conn. (Kevin J. O’Connor, U.S. Atty., Lauren M. Nash, William J. Nardini, Asst. U.S. Attys., on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: NEWMAN and RAGGI,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Thomas J. Meskill recused himself shortly prior to oral argument; therefore, the case is being decided by the remaining two judges. *See*2d Cir. R. § 0.14(b) (interim rule).

PER CURIAM.

This appeal concerns the availability of judicial review of a decision of the United States Air Force denying claims under the Military Claims Act (“MCA”), 10 U.S.C. §§ 2731-2738. The claims were brought by family members of federal employees who were killed in a crash of an Air Force plane in Bosnia in April 1996. *See id.*§ 2733. The Air Force denied the MCA claims on the ground that the Federal Employees Compensation Act (“FECA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193, provided the exclusive remedy for the families of federal employees killed in the course of performing government service, *see id.*§ 8116(e). The appeal is from the September 27, 2004, judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Mark R. Kravitz, District Judge), which dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Kravitz ruled that the MCA barred judicial review, *see*10 U.S.C. § 2735, except for claims of a violation of constitutional rights or a clear statutory mandate of the MCA, and that the claims in the pending case did not involve either type of claim, however questionable the Air Force’s interpretation of the exclusivity provision of FECA might be.

We affirm on the well-reasoned opinion of the District Court. *See Murphy v. United States,*340 F.Supp.2d 160 (D.Conn.2004).
# C_2022472EN.01004701.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/47

---

Action brought on 25 October 2022 — Torre Oria v EUIPO — Giramondi and Antonelli (WINE TALES RACCONTI DI VINO)

(Case T-655/22)

(2022/C 472/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Torre Oria, SL (Derramador-Requena, Spain) (represented by: Á. González López-Menchero and V. Valero Piña, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simone Giramondi (Milan, Italy), Damiano Antonelli (Vignate, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark WINE TALES RACCONTI DI VINO — Application for registration No 18 194 623

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 August 2022 in Case R 822/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially revoke the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially revoke the contested decision;

| — | reject the contested EUTM application No. 18 194 623 for the designated services in class 35: ‘Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions’; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the contested EUTM application No. 18 194 623 for the designated services in class 35: ‘Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions’;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 11-10701.

#### Bailey *v.*Mississippi.

Sup. Ct. Miss. Certio-rari denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9063 

To require agencies of the Federal Government to define the term service 

animal in accordance with the regulations of the Department of Justice, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 31, 2020 

Mr. KING of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To require agencies of the Federal Government to define 

the term service animal in accordance with the regulations of the Department of Justice, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF SERVICE ANIMAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 360 days after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act, each agency of the Fed6 eral Government shall— 

7 (1) by rule, adopt a definition for the terms 

8 ‘‘service animal’’ and ‘‘assistance animal’’, for purVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:37 Jan 21, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H9063.IH H9063

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9063 IH

1 poses of the regulations of that agency, that is iden2 tical to the term ‘‘service animal’’, as defined in the 

3 final rule entitled ‘‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis 

4 of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Com5 mercial Facilities’’ (75 Fed. Reg. 56236 (September 

6 15, 2010)); and 

7 (2) conform any reference to ‘‘service animal’’ 

8 and ‘‘assistance animal’’ in the regulations, policies, 

9 or other official documents of that agency to the 

10 term ‘‘service animal’’, as defined in the final rule 

11 entitled ‘‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Dis12 ability by Public Accommodations and in Commer13 cial Facilities’’ (75 Fed. Reg. 56236 (September 15, 

14 2010)). 

15 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Not later than two years after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act, with respect to an 

17 individual with a ‘‘service animal’’ or ‘‘assistance animal’’ 

18 on the date of the enactment of this Act that does not 

19 meet the definition of the term ‘‘service animal’’ as defined 

20 in the final rule entitled ‘‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis 

21 of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commer22 cial Facilities’’ (75 Fed. Reg. 56236 (September 15, 

23 2010)), each agency of the Federal Government shall 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 9063 IH

1 apply subsection (a) in a way that limits the negative im2 pact to such individual. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          29,397
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,506
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,160
<INVENTORY>                                    113,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               341,231
<PP&E>                                         471,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                 244,055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,036,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          320,855
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,322
<OTHER-SE>                                     262,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,036,836
<SALES>                                      1,200,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,207,699
<CGS>                                          645,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  821,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               333,740
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,059
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,223
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,723
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,723
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022276EN.01001902.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 276/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/19

---

Action brought on 27 May 2022 — Yayla Türk v EUIPO — Marmara Import-Export (Sütat)

(Case T-315/22)

(2022/C 276/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Yayla Türk Lebensmittelvertrieb GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marmara Import-Export GmbH (Ratingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Sütat’ — EU trade mark No 5 414 561

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2022 in Case R 1184/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject Marmara Import-Export GmbH’s application of 17 June 2020 for a declaration of invalidity in respect of EU trade mark No 44 583 C;
  in the alternative: refer the case back to EUIPO for a further hearing and decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject Marmara Import-Export GmbH’s application of 17 June 2020 for a declaration of invalidity in respect of EU trade mark No 44 583 C;

in the alternative: refer the case back to EUIPO for a further hearing and decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the right to be heard.

---
#### COM. v. WADE, J., Jr.

2055 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/22/2017

CP-08-CR-0000245-2016 (Bradford)

Affirmed
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To Ramapo Financial Corporation:

     As independent public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference  in this Form 10-K of our report dated  January 16, 1998 and to all
references  to our  Firm.  It  should be noted  that we haved  not  audited  any
financial statements of Ramapo Finaancial Corporation subsequent to December 31,
1997 or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.


                                                  /s/ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Roseland, New Jersey
March 27, 1998