alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17261]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6117-6]

Gulf of Mexico Program Management Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Program Management 
Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Program's Management Committee will hold a 
meeting at the Nassau Bay Hilton, Houston, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James D. Giattina, Director, Gulf of 
Mexico Program Office, Building 1103, Room 202, Stennis Space Center, 
MS 39529-6000 at (228) 688-1172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Program 
Management Committee will be held at the Nassau Bay Hilton, Houston, 
Texas. The committee will meet from 1:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. on July 22 
and from 8:30 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. on July 23. Agenda items will include: 
Multi-Year Performance Plan Review; Overview of Clean Water Action Plan 
Implementation; FY 1999 Funding Guidance criteria discussion; and Gulf 
of Mexico Program/Gulf NEP Compact overview.
    The meeting is open to the public.
James D. Giattina,
Director, Gulf of Mexico Program.
[FR Doc. 98-17261 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Exhibit 32.2

                            Section 906 Certification


I, Richard L. Hannigan Sr., Chief Financial Officer of Voyager Entertainment
International, Inc., certify that (i) the attached annual report on Form 10-KSB
of Voyager Entertainment International, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form
10-KSB Report for said period fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Voyager Entertainment
International, Inc.

/s/ Richard L. Hannigan Sr.                             Dated: April 7, 2006
---------------------------                                    --------------
Richard L. Hannigan Sr.
Chief Financial Officer
# 436th Logistics Readiness Squadron visits DLA Energy headquarters

/ Published Dec. 14, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia,
No. 10-359.

#### Santiago Pablo-Sanchez, et al., Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1029, 131 S. Ct. 573,

178 L. Ed. 2d 414,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8690.

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 600 F.3d 592.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16394]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Procurement List; Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Addition to the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List a service to be 
furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have 
other severe disabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, Crystal Gateway 3, Suite 310, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, Virginia 22202-4302.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Milkman (703) 603-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 1, 1998, the Committee for Purchase 
From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published a notice (63 
FR 24153) of proposed addition to the Procurement List. After 
consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of 
qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the 
addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has 
determined that the service listed below are suitable for procurement 
by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. I 
certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered 
for this certification were:
    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other 
than the small organizations that will furnish the service to the 
Government.
    2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current 
contractors for the service.
    3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish 
the service to the Government.
    4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would 
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48c) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the 
Procurement List.
    Accordingly, the following service is hereby added to the 
Procurement List.

Janitorial/Custodial

Federal Building and Courthouse, 1 North Palafox Street, Pensacola, 
Florida

    This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the 
effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under 
those contracts.
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 98-16394 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
No. 10-430.

#### Shanna Werner, et al., Petitioners v. Peak Alarm Company, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1064, 131 S. Ct. 660,

178 L. Ed. 2d 483,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9385.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah denied.

Same case below, 243 P.3d 1221.
#### Michal G. Ciechorski, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[62 NYS3d 60]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered July 14, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendant Hudson Meridian Construction Group, LLC (Hudson) for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims as against it, granted the cross motion of defendants City of New York and New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claims as against them, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has abandoned his Labor Law § 240 (1) claims as against EDC and Hudson by failing to address the motion court’s conclusion that those particular defendants could not be held liable for any violations of the statute.

The motion court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim as against the City of New York, because the statute does not cover plaintiff’s injury, namely pain allegedly caused by his repeated work, over the course of weeks, of being handed *414heavy buckets filled with epoxy from workers at a higher level and then transporting the buckets by hand on his own level (see *Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494, 500-501 [1993]). Plaintiff’s assertion that he was required to catch buckets in mid-air, after they were dropped by workers standing on a barge about five or six feet above the float stage where he was standing, is unsupported by the record, even viewed in the light most favorable to him. Plaintiff’s own testimony indicates that the barge workers would lean, bend, or kneel as necessary to hand the buckets to plaintiff, who was six feet, five inches, allowing him to grasp each bucket before it was released. Since plaintiff “was exposed to the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and not the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law § 240 (1), [he] cannot recover under the statute” *(Toefer v Long Is. R.R.,*4 NY3d 399, 407 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

The motion court also correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Hudson, since the evidence showed that the means and methods of the work were determined solely by plaintiff’s employer, nonparty Reicon Group LLC *(see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.,*82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]). The evidence showed that Hudson exercised only general oversight over the performance of the work and site safety conditions, which is “insufficient to trigger liability” *(Singh v Black Diamonds LLC,*24 AD3d 138, 140 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
# C_2015279EN.01003401.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — Axa Versicherung v Commission

(Case T-677/13) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure pursuant to the competition rules - Request relating to a collection of documents - Refusal to grant access - Request relating to a single document - Table of contents - Obligation to undertake a concrete, individual examination - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest - Claim for damages - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 279/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Axa Versicherung AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Bahr, S. Dethof and A. Malec, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Krämer, acting as Agents, and by R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Aix-la-Chapelle, Germany) (represented by: B. Meyring and E. Venot, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/817 and 2012/3021 Gestdem of 29 October 2013, rejecting two requests for access to documents in the file of Case COMP/39.125 (Car glass).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2012/817 and 2012/3021 Gestdem of 29 October 2013, rejecting two requests for access to documents in the file of Case COMP/39.125 (Car glass) in so far as it refuses to grant Axa Versicherung AG access to the ‘leniency documents’ included in the table of contents of that file; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2012/817 and 2012/3021 Gestdem of 29 October 2013, rejecting two requests for access to documents in the file of Case COMP/39.125 (Car glass) in so far as it refuses to grant Axa Versicherung AG access to the ‘leniency documents’ included in the table of contents of that file;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Axa Versicherung and the European Commission to each bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Axa Versicherung and the European Commission to each bear their own costs;

| 4. | Orders Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1714]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meeting of the Biomedical 
Library Review Committee

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the Biomedical Library Review Committee on March 4-5, 1998, 
convening at 8:30 a.m. in the Board Room of the National Library of 
Medicine, Building 38, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland.
    The meeting on March 4 will be open to the public from 8:30 a.m. to 
approximately 11 a.m. for the discussion of administrative reports and 
program developments. Attendance by the public will be limited to space 
available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, 
such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact Dr. Sharee Pepper at 301-496-4253 two 
weeks before the meeting.
    In accordance with provisions set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 
552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., and sec. 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, the 
meeting on March 4, will be closed to the public for the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications from 11 
a.m. to approximately 5 p.m., and on March 5 from 8:30 a.m. to 
adjournment. These applications and the discussion could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property, such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications, disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of person privacy.
    Dr. Sharee Pepper, Health Scientist Administrator, Extramural 
Programs, National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20894, telephone number: 301-496-4253, will provide summaries 
of the meeting, rosters of the committee members, and other information 
pertaining to the meeting.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879--Medical 
Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health.)

    Dated: January 16, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-1714 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 31.1RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002I, Sheldon C. Fenton certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Veridien Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth physical quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 15, 2005 /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton          Sheldon C. Fenton       Chief Executive Officer
#### Mobstub, Inc., Respondent, v www.staytrendy.com et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[60 NYS3d 356]

In an action, inter alia, for permanent injunctive relief and to recover damages for trademark infringement and unfair *810competition, the defendants www.staytrendy.com and Jack Cohen, also known as Jack Alhakim, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated August 6, 2015, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to preliminarily enjoin them from using the trade name “Stay Trendy” in connection with their business.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision directing the plaintiff to file an undertaking; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the fixing of an appropriate amount of the undertaking.

In this trademark infringement action, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from using the trade name “Stay Trendy” in connection with their business. The defendants appeal, arguing that the court erred in granting that relief or, in the alternative, that the court erred in failing to direct the plaintiff to file an undertaking.

A party seeking the drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction has the burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) the prospect of irreparable injury if the provisional relief is withheld, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor *(see Doe v Axelrod,*73 NY2d 748, 750 [1988]; *Berkoski v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Southampton,*67 AD3d 840, 844 [2009]). The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court *(see Doe v Axelrod,*73 NY2d at 750; *Perpignan v Persaud,*91 AD3d 622, 622-623 [2012]; *Family-Friendly Media, Inc. v Recorder Tel. Network,*74 AD3d 738 [2010]). Here, where the plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the merits and the irreparable harm it would suffer should the preliminary injunction not be granted, the equities tip in favor of the plaintiff and the court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which sought a preliminary injunction *(see Gerstner v Katz,*38 AD3d 835, 836 [2007]; *Adirondack Appliance Repair v Adirondack Appliance Parts,*148 AD2d 796, 798 [1989]).

However, upon the granting of a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff *“shall*give an undertaking in an amount to be fixed by the court, that the plaintiff, if it is finally determined that he or she was not entitled to an injunction, will pay to the defendant all damages and costs which may be sustained by reason of the injunction” (CPLR 6312 [b] [emphasis added]; *see Carter v*
      *811
      *Konstantatos,*156 AD2d 632, 633 [1989]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the fixing of an appropriate amount of the undertaking.

Leventhal, J.P., Barros, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
# C_2015213EN.01003201.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — easyGroup IP Licensing v OHIM — Tui (easyAir-tours)

(Case T-608/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark easyAir-tours - Earlier national figurative mark airtours Ticket Factory - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Power to alter decisions - Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 213/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Day and K. Osgerby, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tui AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1029/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Tui AG and easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1029/2012-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1029/2012-1);

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd;

| 4. | Orders Tui AG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Tui AG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
# C_2015236EN.01003701.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission

(Case T-578/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Plant protection products - Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance - Refusal of the request for confidential treatment of certain information - Contested act not attributable to the defendant - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 236/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); and Luxembourg Industries Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for the annulment of the decision, notified by letter of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 8 October 2013, to publish certain parts of documents in respect of which the applicants had requested confidentiality.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd and Luxembourg Industries Ltd to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd and Luxembourg Industries Ltd to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---