alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9408-9409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5185]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-70, RM-9020]


Radio Broadcasting Services; El Reno, OK

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Fred 
R. Morton, Jr., seeking the allotment of Channel 293A to El Reno, OK, 
as the community's first local FM transmission service. Channel 293A 
can be allotted to El Reno in compliance with the Commission's minimum 
distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 12.5 
kilometers (7.8 miles) west, at coordinates 35-32-18 NL; 98-05-26 WL, 
to avoid a short-spacing to Stations KGOU, Channel 292A, Norman, OK, 
and KYQQ, Channel 293C, Arkansas City, KS.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 14, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Fred R. 
Morton, Jr., 5103 North Cherry, Lawton, OK 73505 (Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-70, adopted February 
14, 1997, and released February 21, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.

[[Page 9409]]

    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-5185 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
EX-10.4(b)



 Exhibit 10.4(b) 

June 1, 2013 
 Cirrus Capital Management, LLC 

700 Louisiana 
 Suite 4260 

Houston, TX 77002 
 Attention: Mr. Randall Posejpal 

 

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear Mr. Posejpal: 

We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management
Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2014 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	CMF Cirrus Master Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. 

 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this
letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Damian George at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions I can be reached at 212-296-1292. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Damian George

		 	Damian George
		 	Chief Financial Officer & Director
	
	CIRRUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Randall Posejpal



 

			
	Print Name:	 	 Randall Posejpal


 DG/sr
# C_2022398EN.01003201.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/32

---

Action brought on 25 August 2022 — Deutsche Glasfaser Wholesale v EUIPO — O2 Worldwide (brightblue)

(Case T-516/22)

(2022/C 398/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Glasfaser Wholesale GmbH (Borken, Germany) (represented by: A. Doepner-Thiele and U. Kelp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Worldwide Ltd (Cambridge, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark brightblue — Application for registration No 17 913 265

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2022 in Case R 0024/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Applicant.

Pleas 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;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Ex10.71






EXHIBIT 10.71


DE-NE0000530
Amendment 016






AMENDMENT NO. 016
TO
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT DE-NE0000530 BETWEEN
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (“DOE”),
USEC INC. (“USEC”), 
AND 
AMERICAN CENTRIFUGE DEMONSTRATION, LLC (“ACD”) 
(collectively, the “Agreement”)




		
	1.
	Line 2 of the Opening Page: Amendment No. is changed from 015 to 016.




		
	2.
	Line 9 of the Opening Page is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




Funds Obligated This Action: $0.00


		
	3.
	This modification is a net-zero, administrative modification to reclassify a portion of USEC’s funding from one funding source to another. This is an internal DOE requirement and will have no practical impact on the cooperative agreement or its funding. 




		
	4.
	All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain the same.












/s/ Karen S. Shears                    /s/ Philip G. Sewell            
Karen S. Shears                        Philip G. Sewell
Contracting Officer                    Senior Vice President
U.S. Department of Energy                USEC Inc.


3/19/14                            3/19/14                    
Date                            Date


/s/ Paul Sullivan            
Paul Sullivan
Project Manager
American Centrifuge Demonstration, LLC


3/19/14                    
Date
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6102]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-272-000]


WestGas InterState, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Waiver

March 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 3, 1997, WestGas InterState, Inc. (WGI) 
tendered for filing a petition for waiver of the requirements of the 
Commission's Order No. 587-B.
    WGI states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all of its 
jurisdictional customers and to affected state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before 
March 13, 1997. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6102 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2022303EN.01002501.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/25

---

Appeal brought on 9 June 2022 by Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Swiss International Air Lines AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-342/17, Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission

(Case C-380/22 P)

(2022/C 303/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, Swiss International Air Lines AG (represented by: S. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, and R. Benditz, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul, in whole or in part, the Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in whole or in part, the Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);

| — | in the alternative, if deemed necessary, remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if deemed necessary, remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration in accordance with the Court’s judgment;

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the appellant’s costs, both for these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the appellant’s costs, both for these proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court; and

| — | take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the applicants rely on one plea in law consisting of four limbs.

First limb, alleging that the judgment under appeal errs in law in failing to show that the conduct restricts ‘competition within the internal market’ pursuant to Article 101(1) TFEU.

Second limb, alleging that the judgment under appeal errs in law in finding that the Commission was entitled to take into account the effects of a single and continuous infringement as a whole.

Third limb, alleging that the General Court wrongly substituted its own assessment of qualified effects for that of the Commission.

Fourth limb, alleging that the judgment under appeal errs in law by holding that the relevant facts give rise to immediate, substantial and foreseeable effects under the qualified effects test.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Applied Imaging Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robin Stracey, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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:

(1) The 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 the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 13, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ ROBIN STRACEY      
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Robin Stracey          
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 99.1



     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


I, Bruce M. Goldberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of All American
Semiconductor, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge:

         (1)      that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of All American
                  Semiconductor, Inc. for the quarterly period ended on March
                  31, 2003 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
                  the date hereof at File No. 0-16207 (the "Report") fully
                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
                  applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                  of operations of All American Semiconductor, Inc.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.




Dated: May 15, 2003                              /s/ Bruce M. Goldberg
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                                 Bruce M. Goldberg
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Robert ERSKINE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11665 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(February 27, 2018)

Steven E. Butler, Adara W. Overstreet, Kenyen Ray Brown, Maria E. Murphy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carlos Alfredo Williams, Federal Defender’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant

Michael Robert Erskine, Pro Se

Before WILSON, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kristen Gartman Rogers, appointed counsel for Michael Erskine in this direct *998criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Erskine and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Erskine’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
# C_2022441EN.01001502.xml

| 21.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 441/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 1 September 2022 — flightright GmbH v TAP Portugal

(Case C-578/22)

(2022/C 441/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: flightright GmbH

Defendant and respondent: TAP Portugal

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 4(3), in conjunction with Article 2(j), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, (1) read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that passengers must always present themselves for check-in as stipulated and at the time indicated in advance by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, or, if no time is indicated, not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time, and, in accordance with Article 2(j) of that regulation, must also present themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) thereof? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 4(3), in conjunction with Article 2(j), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, (1) read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that passengers must always present themselves for check-in as stipulated and at the time indicated in advance by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, or, if no time is indicated, not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time, and, in accordance with Article 2(j) of that regulation, must also present themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) thereof?

| 2. | In the event that the Court of Justice answers the first question in the negative:
  Must Article 4(3), in conjunction with Article 2(j), of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that denied boarding against the will of the passenger may also be expressed by the contractual air carrier — which has concluded a code-share agreement with the operating air carrier in relation to the flight — to the passenger with effect to the detriment of the operating air carrier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the Court of Justice answers the first question in the negative:

Must Article 4(3), in conjunction with Article 2(j), of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that denied boarding against the will of the passenger may also be expressed by the contractual air carrier — which has concluded a code-share agreement with the operating air carrier in relation to the flight — to the passenger with effect to the detriment of the operating air carrier?

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
#### RED LION BORO v. RED LION BORO ZHB, et al.

55 CD 2017

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/20/2017

York County Civil Division, 2016-SU-1857-28

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>




<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-29-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<CASH>                                             398
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     56,164
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,372
<PP&E>                                          66,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,861
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,497
<SALES>                                         71,397
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,397
<CGS>                                           35,990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,112)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,418)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,694)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,694)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.50)
        
















</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME, THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND THE NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                          26,055
<SECURITIES>                                        88
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,449
<INVENTORY>                                     91,423
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,525
<PP&E>                                          50,607
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,214
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,439
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,470
<SALES>                                         46,977
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,977
<CGS>                                           36,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,996<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,263)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        44
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,307)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,307)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.09)
<FN>
<F1>OTHER EXPENSES CONSISTS OF ALL OPERATING COSTS AND EXCLUDES INTEREST,
NON-OPERATING INCOME AND INCOME TAXES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-10648.

#### Hicks *v.*Birkett, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.