alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17518]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL163-1b; FRL-6119-1]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: USEPA is proposing to approve the October 10, 1997, Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) request that USEPA change the 
regulatory status for Riverside Laboratories, Inc.''s (Riverside) Kane 
County facility, based on Riverside's current compliance with the 
applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) rule. In the final rules 
section of this Federal Register, the USEPA is approving the State's 
request as a direct final rule without prior proposal because USEPA 
views this action as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse 
comments. A detailed rationale for approving the State's request is set 
forth in the direct final rule. The direct final rule will become 
effective without further notice unless US EPA receives relevant 
adverse written comments or a request for a public hearing on this 
proposed rule. Should USEPA receive such comment, it will publish a 
final rule informing the public that the direct final rule did not take 
effect and such public comment received will be addressed in a 
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. If no adverse 
written comments or request for a public hearing are received, the 
direct final rule will take effect on the date stated in that document 
and no further activity will be taken on this proposed rule. USEPA does 
not plan to institute a second comment period on this action. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this 
time.

DATES: Written comments or a request for a public hearing on this 
proposed rule must be received on or before July 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State submittal are available for inspection at: 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Air Programs Branch 
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule published in the final rules section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated:June 25, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-17518 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
# C_2014448EN.01002002.xml

| 15.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 November 2014 — Commission v Thomé

(Case T-669/13) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Refusal to recruit - Existence of a degree that complies with the condition laid down in the notice of competition on account of a homologation - Financial and non-material damage))

(2014/C 448/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Florence Thomé (Brussles, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 7 October 2013 in Case F-97/12 Thomé v Commission seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

1

---
Exhibit
31.2
 Form
10-QSB
 Viking
Systems, Inc.
 File No.
000-49636
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 I, Joseph
Warrino, certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Viking Systems,
Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on
my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;
 
 4.  I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and
have:
 
 a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;
 
 b)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
 
 c)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent
      fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
      annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and
 
 
 5.  I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 
 b)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control
      over financial reporting.
 
 Date:  May 5,
2005
 
 
 
 /s/
Joseph Warrino
 Chief
Financial Officer
 
 
  2
### Request for Information Jere mie D Elliott (FAA-2015-4830) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) Dear Mr. Elliott: This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA − 2015 − 4830). This information is necessary for the Fede ral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your p etition. z Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed - wing, rotorcraft, lighter - than - air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM) wh ich is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your inte ntion by the requested response date listed below. Please submit the additional informati on (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, plea se also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comm ent tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we mu st receive the information de scribed above by January 4, 2016. If we do not receive the information, we willclose the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please f eel free to contac t me at (202) 267–2999. FAA Office o f Rulemakin g Sent : Monday , December 21, 2015 2:54 PM To: j eremie.elliott@ gmail.com
<PAGE> 1

Exhibit 99

CERTIFICATION 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 Viking Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the "Report"), I, Dennis
Blomquist, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
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 result of operations of the Company.


/S/ Dennis Blomquist

Dennis Blomquist
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
August 19, 2002
# C_2013352EN.01000802.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2013 — Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v Betriebskrankenkasse RWE

(Case C-504/13)

2013/C 352/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent on a point of law: Betriebskrankenkasse RWE

Respondent on a point of law:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 6(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a product in the form of a medical device which is implanted in the human body (in this case, an implantable cardioverter defibrillator — ICD) is already defective if a malfunction has occurred in a significant number of devices in the same series, but a defect has not been detected in the device which has been implanted in the specific case in point? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 6(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a product in the form of a medical device which is implanted in the human body (in this case, an implantable cardioverter defibrillator — ICD) is already defective if a malfunction has occurred in a significant number of devices in the same series, but a defect has not been detected in the device which has been implanted in the specific case in point?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
  Do the costs of the operation to remove the product and implant another ICD constitute damage caused by personal injury for the purposes of Article 1 and point (a) of the first sentence of Article 9 of Directive 85/374/EEC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Do the costs of the operation to remove the product and implant another ICD constitute damage caused by personal injury for the purposes of Article 1 and point (a) of the first sentence of Article 9 of Directive 85/374/EEC?

---

(1)  OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29.

1

---
# C_2015320EN.01000601.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/6

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘Itales’ OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

(Case C-123/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principle of tax neutrality - Deduction of input VAT - Meaning of ‘supply of goods’ - Conditions for establishing a supply of goods - No proof that the direct supplier was actually in possession of the goods))

(2015/C 320/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Itales’ OOD

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danacho-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, concerning the right to deduct value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a tax authority of a Member State from considering that a supply of goods has not taken place, with the consequence that the purchaser is prevented from deducting the value added tax incurred at the time of the purchase, on the ground that the purchaser has not proved either the origin of the goods concerned or that his supplier was in possession of those goods, where that authority has not established that the purchaser was involved in value added tax evasion and knew or ought to have known that the transaction at issue was connected with such evasion.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6821

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PHILLIP CHARLES BROWN, Reverend,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR91-250-WMN, CA-95-3387-WMN)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Charles Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Brown, Nos. CR-91-250-WMN; CA-95-

3387-WMN (D. Md. May 9, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 10-657.

#### Patricia Martin, Petitioner v. Michael Martin.

562 U.S. 1200, 131 S. Ct. 1046,

178 L. Ed. 2d 865,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 949.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire denied.

Same case below, 160 N.H. 645, 8 A.3d 60.
No. 10-5814.

#### Hung Ha, Petitioner v. James A. Richman, et al.

562 U.S. 1172, 131 S. Ct. 986,

178 L. Ed. 2d 814,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 223.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 967, 131 S. Ct. 469, 178 L. Ed. 2d 298, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8055.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: September 4, 2014
TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013

- 0602
FROM: Region 7 , EPA
SUBJECT: August 2 7 , 2014 , Conference Call Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for

Existing Power Plants

**SUMMARY**
A conference call was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 2 7 , 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

. The purpose of the call was to answer questions regard ing the Carbon Powe r Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2 , 2014

. **ATTENDEES** EPA Region 7: Mark A. Smith Toni Gargas John Smith Josh Tapp Becky Weber
Io wa Department of Natural Resources Catherine Fitzsimmons Christine Paulson Jason Marcel Marnie Stein Kansas Department of Health and Environment Melissa Weide Miles Stotts Lyn n Deahl Tom Gross Missouri Department of Natural Resources Mark Leath Emily Wilbur Paul Mey ers Julia KatichNebraska Department of Environmental

Quality Adam Yarina Shelley Schneider Katie Gutierrez Brian Kozisek
No. 10-6240.

#### In re Curtis J. Neeley, Jr., Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1001, 131 S. Ct. 528,

178 L. Ed. 2d 409,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8434.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Exhibit 4.1







 


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 





 


June 19, 2014


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Capital Innovations Global Infrastructure
& MLP Trust, Series 6


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Capital Innovations Global Infrastructure & MLP Trust, Series 6 set forth above
(the “Trust”). We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices
indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on June 19, 2014, in accordance with the valuation
method set forth in the Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party
performing the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (File No. 333-195704) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an
exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/
GERARDO CIPRIANO                     


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
No. 10-6448.

#### Andrew Obriecht, Petitioner v. Michael S. Thurmer, Warden.

562 U.S. 1047, 131 S. Ct. 605,

178 L. Ed. 2d 441,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8964.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Youell, Petitioner,*

No. 90678-5.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 72034-1-1, July 28, 2014, 182 Wn. App. 1040. *Granted on a specific issue*and *remanded*to the Superior Court December 2, 2015.
# C_2013207EN.01006202.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/62

---

Action brought on 16 May 2013 — ZZ v European Commission

(Case F-46/13)

2013/C 207/109

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the application for the employment of the applicant as a contract agent in function group II submitted by DG DEVCO and compensation for the material damage suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission, as AECE, of 4 October 2012 not to recruiter the applicant as an auxiliary contract agent in function group II; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission, as AECE, of 4 October 2012 not to recruiter the applicant as an auxiliary contract agent in function group II;

| — | so far as necessary, annul the AECE decision of 7 February 2013 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 19 October 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, annul the AECE decision of 7 February 2013 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 19 October 2012;

| — | award compensation for his material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

award compensation for his material damage;

| — | award the sum fixed ex aequo et bono and provisionally at EUR 50 000 in respect of non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the sum fixed ex aequo et bono and provisionally at EUR 50 000 in respect of non-material damage suffered;

ex aequo et bono

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of DigitalTown, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for
      the period ending November 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned
      hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (18
      U.S.C. Section 135)), that to 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 result of operations of the
                Company.






Date:
      January 14, 2008





/s/  Richard
      A.
      Pomije_____


Richard
      A. Pomije


Chief
      Executive Officer