alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search

		Submit


Project Connect








Implementation Guide						Print
																Related Pages
					Implementation Guide PDF Version
This guide is intended for state and local health departments, schools, community based organizations, and other agencies who intend to implement Project Connect in their communities.
Browse the guide online or download it as a PDF.
Overview, Challenge, and Core Components
The Road Map – Key Action Steps
Sustainability, Lessons Learned, and Conclusion
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  April 1, 2020						Source: 	Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homeProject Connect
Implementation Guideminus icon
Overview, Challenge, and Core Components
The Road Map – Key Action Steps
Sustainability, Lessons Learned, and Conclusion
Case Studiesplus icon
Detroit
Los Angeles
Tools


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
# C_2013101EN.01002401.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/24

---

Action brought on 5 February 2013 — Three-N-Products Private v OHIM — Munindra Holding (AYUR)

(Case T-63/13)

2013/C 101/52

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: M. Thewes and T. Chevrier, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Munindra Holding BV (Lelystad, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision R 2296/2011-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 November 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision R 2296/2011-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 November 2012;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision as regards the ‘consultancy services in the field of herbal remedies, nutrition, health and beauty care’, in Class 44; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision as regards the ‘consultancy services in the field of herbal remedies, nutrition, health and beauty care’, in Class 44;

| — | order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘AYUR’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 16 and 44 — Community trade mark No 5 429 469

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Munindra Holding BV

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Registered Benelux word mark ‘AYUS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 29, 30 and 31

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld in part

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-7546.

#### Juan A. Hill, Petitioner v. Howard Carlton, Warden.

562 U.S. 1154, 131 S. Ct. 948,

178 L. Ed. 2d 783,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 247.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 399 Fed. Appx. 38.
# C_2013344EN.01003902.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/39

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2013 — Ute Reindl, MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

(Case C-443/13)

2013/C 344/69

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in Tirol

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendants and appellants: Ute Reindl, MPREIS Warenvertriebs GmbH

Defendants and appellants:

Applicant and respondent: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Innsbruck

Applicant and respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1086/2011 (1) amending Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 to be understood as meaning that fresh poultry meat must satisfy the microbiological criterion set out in Annex I, Chapter 1, Row 1.28, to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (2) at all stages of distribution? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1086/2011 (1) amending Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 to be understood as meaning that fresh poultry meat must satisfy the microbiological criterion set out in Annex I, Chapter 1, Row 1.28, to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 (2) at all stages of distribution?

1

2

| 2. | Are food business operators which are active at the food distribution stage also subject in full to the regime under Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are food business operators which are active at the food distribution stage also subject in full to the regime under Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005?

| 3. | Must the microbiological criterion set out in Annex I, Chapter 1, Row 1.28, to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 also be observed at all stages of distribution by food business operators which are not involved in production (being involved exclusively at the distribution stage)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the microbiological criterion set out in Annex I, Chapter 1, Row 1.28, to Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 also be observed at all stages of distribution by food business operators which are not involved in production (being involved exclusively at the distribution stage)?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1086/2011 of 27 October 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 as regards salmonella in fresh poultry meat (OJ 2011 L 281, p. 7).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs (OJ 2005 L 338, p. 1).

2

---
# C_2015320EN.01001201.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/12

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — P v M

(Case C-507/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Absence of reasonable doubt - Jurisdiction in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 16(1)(a) - Determination of the time at which a court is seised - Request to stay the proceedings - No effect))

(2015/C 320/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P

Applicant:

Defendant: M

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 16(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that a court is deemed to be seised at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with that court, even where the proceedings have in the meantime been stayed at the initiative of the applicant who brought them, without those proceedings having been notified to the defendant or that defendant having had knowledge of them or having intervened in them in any way, provided that the applicant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the respondent.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

1

---
#### Gail Thacker, Appellant, v Thomas Malloy, Respondent.

[49 NYS3d 165]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful eviction, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated August 11, 2015, as, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process” *(Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas,*303 AD2d 343, 343 [2003]; *see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hamilton,*116 AD3d 663, 664 [2014]). “In reviewing a determination made after a hearing, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the hearing court, and this Court may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” *(Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Gordon,*129 AD3d 769, 769 [2015]; *see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; *HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hamilton,*116 AD3d at 663).

Here, at a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process. Evidence showed that the process server walked up to the window of the defendant’s mother’s ground-floor apartment to give her the summons and complaint as he stood on the sidewalk and she stood inside her apartment. Although the defendant resided in the same multiple-dwelling building as his mother, his apartment was on a higher floor, and it was separate and distinct from his mother’s apartment. Hence, in serving the defendant’s mother with the summons and complaint while she was inside her own apartment, service was not made at the defendant’s actual dwelling place *(see*CPLR 308 [2]; *Dinicu v Groff Studios Corp.,*215 AD2d 323 [1995]; *Biological Concepts v Rudel,*159 *858AD2d 32 [1990]; *cf. F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen,*41 NY2d 794 [1977]; *Roldan v Thorpe,*117 AD2d 790 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court or without merit.

Eng, P.J., Balkin, Hall and Barros, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-76697,
33-1805, 33-22289, 33-50248, 33-74488, 333-62933, 333-81955, 333-32872 and 333-56120) of Quixote
Corporation and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 2-96502 and 33-14873) of Quixote Corporation of our report dated August 3, 2001 except
as to information presented in Note 18, for which the date is August 31, 2001, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this
Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chicago,
Illinois
September 26, 2001

---

QuickLinks
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 

SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

1999 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 

 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Superior Energy Services, Inc. (the
"Company") desires to amend the Superior Energy Services, Inc. 1999 Stock
Incentive Plan (the "Plan") to comply with the New York Stock Exchange
requirements applicable to shareholder approval of equity compensation plans
that contain terms of more than ten years;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

I.

 

Section 4.1(G) of the Plan is hereby deleted effective as of
December 7, 2004.

 

 

Adopted by the Board of Directors dated as of December 7,
2004.

 

 

 

 

	 	
		
/s/ Terence E. Hall

			 
	 	
		Terence E. Hall

			 
	 	
Chairman of the Board
Exhibit
        32
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterlyl Report of BDC Capital, Inc. (the *“Company”* ),
        on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission (the *“Report”* ),
        I,
        Richard A. Pomije, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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:
        July 20, 2005
 
 /s/
        Richard A. Pomije
 Richard
        A. Pomije
 Chief
        Executive Officer and
 Chief
        Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddy Cepeda, Appellant.

[48 NYS3d 612]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Koenderman, J.), dated April 15, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant’s contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from a level three sex offender status based upon the aggregate of certain factors is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Figueroa,*138 AD3d 708, 709 *943[2016]; *People v Rosales,*133 AD3d 733, 733 [2015]; *People v Fernandez,*91 AD3d 737, 738 [2012]). In any event, the defendant failed to demonstrate that there existed mitigating circumstances of a kind or to a degree not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines that warranted a downward departure from his presumptive level three sex offender status *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]; *People v Sanchez,*138 AD3d 946 [2016]; *People v Azeez,*138 AD3d 945 [2016]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.

Mastro, J.P., Lev-enthal, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.
1350): I, Thomas D. Karol, Chief Executive Officer of ElkCorp, certify to my
knowledge and belief pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C.ss. 1350) that:  (1)
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30,
2004, which this statement accompanies, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the period ended June 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
ElkCorp. Date: September 10, 2004 By
    
    /s/ Thomas D. KarolThomas D. KarolChief Executive Officer
No. 10-7866.

#### TiJon Cox, Petitioner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

562 U.S. 1190, 131 S. Ct. 1023,

178 L. Ed. 2d 847,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 841,

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 401 Fed. Appx. 801.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 36149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17758]



[[Page 36147]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VIII





The President





_______________________________________________________________________



Presidential Determination No. 98-31 of June 19, 1998--Presidential 
Determination on U.S. Assistance to the Korean Peninsula Energy 
Development Organization (KEDO)


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 1998 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 36149]]

                Presidential Determination No. 98-31 of June 19, 1998

                
Presidential Determination on U.S. Assistance to 
                the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization 
                (KEDO)

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 
                614(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
                amended, 22 U.S.C. 2364(a)(1) (the ``Act''), I hereby 
                determine that it is important to the security 
                interests of the United States to furnish up to $5 
                million in funds made available under Chapter IV, Part 
                II of the Act for a U.S. contribution to KEDO without 
                regard to any provision of law within the scope of 
                section 614(a)(1). I hereby authorize this 
                contribution.

                You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this 
                determination to the Congress and to arrange for its 
                publication in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, June 19, 1998.

[FR Doc. 98-17758
Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
No. 10-7338.

#### Patrick Carson, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1151, 131 S. Ct. 937,

178 L. Ed. 2d 777,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 310.

January 10, 2011.

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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2768 

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to allow the release of 

education records to facilitate the award of a recognized postsecondary 

credential. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2019 

Mr. NEGUSE (for himself, Ms. STEFANIK, and Ms. FUDGE) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to allow 

the release of education records to facilitate the award 

of a recognized postsecondary credential. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reverse Transfer Effi5 ciency Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2768 IH

1 SEC. 2. RELEASE OF EDUCATION RECORDS TO FACILITATE 

2 THE AWARD OF A RECOGNIZED POSTSEC3 ONDARY CREDENTIAL. 

4 Section 444(b) of the General Education Provisions 

5 Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

7 (A) in subparagraph (K)(ii), by striking ‘‘; 

8 and’’ and inserting a semicolon; and 

9 (B) in subparagraph (L), by striking the 

10 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

11 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (L) the fol12 lowing: 

13 ‘‘(M) an institution of postsecondary education 

14 in which the student was previously enrolled, to 

15 which records of postsecondary coursework and cred16 its are sent for the purpose of applying such 

17 coursework and credits toward completion of a rec18 ognized postsecondary credential (as that term is de19 fined in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and 

20 Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102)), upon condition 

21 that the student provides written consent prior to re22 ceiving such credential.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS