alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-171]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984.
    Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the 
Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, 
N.W., Room 962. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement 
to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, 
within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register.
    Agreement No.: 224-201044.
    Title: San Francisco Port Commission/Marine Terminals Corporation 
Nonexclusive Management Agreement.
    Parties:

    San Francisco Port Commission (``Port'')
    Marine Terminals Corporation (``MTC'').

    Synopsis: The Proposed Agreement permits MTC to have non-exclusive 
right to operate at Pier 80, at the Port, and for the Port to 
compensate MTC for providing services at the facility. MTC will pay the 
Port an Annual Use Fee and a percentage of Tariff Revenue. In addition, 
MTC will be responsible for billing and collecting all tariff revenues. 
The term of the Agreement is for five years.

    Dated: December 30, 1997.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Ronald D. Murphy,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-171 Filed 1-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
# C_2014024EN.01003001.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/30

---

Action brought on 18 November 2013 — Calida v OHIM — Quanzhou Green Garments (dadida)

(Case T-597/13)

2014/C 24/54

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Calida Holding AG (Sursee, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kaase and H. Dirksmeier, 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: Quanzhou Green Garments Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China)

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 the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 September 2013 given in Case R 1190/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 September 2013 given in Case R 1190/2012-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

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: International registration with effect in the European Union No 979 903 for the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘dadida’ for goods in Class 25

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

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

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

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Relative grounds pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Jerome Holman, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered October 9, 2013, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of driving while impaired, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered October 9, 2013, affirmed.</p><p>The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (<i>see People v Prochilo</i>, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The record supports the finding that defendant's statement to police that he "should have taken a cab" was a spontaneous, freely volunteered utterance that was unprompted by any police interrogation or the functional equivalent thereof, and, as such, was admissible regardless of whether defendant was in custody when he made it (<i>see People v Hightower</i>, 154 AD3d 636 [2017]; <i>People v Grant</i>, 96 AD3d 779, 780 [2012], <i>lv denied </i>19 NY3d 1026 [2012]).</p><p>The verdict convicting defendant of driving while impaired (<i>see</i> Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1192[1]) was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Again, no basis is shown for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility. Defendant's argument that the People failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the breathalyzer test results is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the People laid a proper foundation for the admission of the results (<i>see People v Campbell</i>, 73 NY2d 481, 484 [1989]), that included, insofar as relevant to this appeal, testimony establishing that defendant was adequately observed for 15 minutes prior to the administration of the test (<i>see People v McDonough</i>, 132 AD2d 997, 998 [1987], <i>lv denied</i> 70 NY2d 801 [1987]). In any event, any failure to continuously observe defendant for 15 minutes goes only to the weight to be afforded the test results, and not to their admissibility (<i>see People v Jones</i>, 50 AD3d 1058, 1059 [2008], <i>lv denied </i>10 NY3d 936 [2008]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: December 31, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
No. 10-6389.

#### Pauline Rowl, Petitioner v. Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers, et al.

562 U.S. 1046, 131 S. Ct. 602,

178 L. Ed. 2d 439,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9006.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 329.
<pre>

Exhibit 31.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned officer of Vote Power Corp. (the "Company") hereby
certifies that:

(i) the Quarterly Report  on Form 10-QSB/A of  the Company for the  quarter
ended March 31, 2006 , as amended, (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a)  or Section 15(d),  as applicable, of  the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

                      /s/   Inti Shaikh
                      ---------------------------
                      Inti Shaikh
                      CEO
                     (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated:  January 14, 2008



Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley
Act of 2002 the undersigned officer of Vote Power Corp. (the "Company") hereby
certifies that:

(i) the Quarterly Report  on Form 10-QSB/A of  the Company for the  quarter
ended March 31, 2006, as amended,  (the Report) fully complies with  the
requirements of Section 13(a)  or Section 15(d),  as applicable, of  the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

                        VOTE POWER CORPORATION
                        /S/ Inti Shaikh
                        ----------------------------
                        Inti Shaikh
                        Secretary/Treasurer
                        (Principal Financial Officer)


Dated:  January 14, 2008
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.02

                              THE BANC CORPORATION
                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of The Banc Corporation
(the "Company") certifies that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of the Company for the Quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: August 14, 2003                         /s/ David R. Carter
                                               -------------------
                                                   David R. Carter
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 10-7159.

#### Antonio Tovar, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1075, 131 S. Ct. 674,

178 L. Ed. 2d 502,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9259.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 387 Fed. Appx. 210.
# C_2015213EN.01000901.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — SMK kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal

(Case C-97/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 52(c) and 55 - Determination of the place of supply of services - Recipient of the service identified for value added tax purposes in several Member States - Dispatch or transport out of the Member State in which the service has been physically carried out))

(2015/C 213/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Gyulai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SMK kft

Applicant:

Defendants: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 55 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in the version in force until 1 January 2010, must be interpreted as not applying in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings in which the recipient of the supplies of services was identified for VAT purposes both in the Member State in which the services were physically carried out and in another Member State, and later only in the other Member State, and the tangible movable property to which those services related was dispatched or transported out of the Member State in which the services were physically carried out not following the supplies of services but following the later sale of the goods.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

1

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Jeffrey A. Ludrof, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Erie Family Life Insurance
Company for the year ended December 31, 2004;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.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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; andc.
    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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:  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; andb.
    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: February 24, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey A. LudrofJeffrey A. Ludrof, President & CEO
 92
No. 10-279.

#### Carpenter Technology Corporation, Petitioner v. Agere Systems, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1062, 131 S. Ct. 646,

178 L. Ed. 2d 479,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9093.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 602 F.3d 204.
No. 10M50.

#### Victoria Sethunya, Petitioner v. Weber State University, et al.

562 U.S. 1090, 131 S. Ct. 811,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9523.

178 L. Ed. 2d 529,

December 6, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 793.
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 23
        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
        We
            have issued our report dated April 14, 2005, accompanying the consolidated
            financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report
            of Environmental Tectonics Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K
            for the year ended February 25, 2005. We
            hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in
            the Registration Statements of Environmental Tectonics Corporation
            and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File
		No. 333-65469, effective October
            8, 1998 and File No. 2-92407, effective August 14, 1984), Form S-3A
            (File No. 333-29083, effective July 2, 1997) and Forms S-3 (File
            No. 333-29083, effective June 12, 1997 and File No. 33-42219, effective
            September 4, 1991).
        Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaMay 26, 2005

|44
|--
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements (as amended, as applicable) File
Numbers 33-4041, 33-9570, 33-12119, 33-15680, 33-37827, 33-56762, 33-65123,
33-83402, 333-07413, 333-10919, 333-10965, 333-30947, 333-57651, 333-66149,
333-47633, 333-66147, 333-67341, 333-68621, 333-90133, 333-90139, 333-35102,
333-35274, 333-41140 and 333-41138.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

San Diego, California
March 30, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2622 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2622

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the credit for 
                      production of refined coal.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2019

 Mr. Gianforte (for himself and Mr. McKinley) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the credit for 
                      production of refined coal.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF REFINED COAL PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Section 45(e)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``10-year period'' 
        each place it appears and inserting ``12-year period'', and
            (2) in subparagraph (D)(ii)(II), by striking ``10-year 
        period'' and inserting ``12-year period''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to coal produced and sold after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-7294.

#### Johnnie Joe Longs, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1077, 131 S. Ct. 682,

178 L. Ed. 2d 506,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9137.

November 29, 2010.

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

*507Same case below, 613 F.3d 1174.
Dear Mr. Wilson :

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015− 3236 )

. This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to

proce ed without this manual and remove closed

- set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non

- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 12/7/15 . I f we do not receive the
information

, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

- 4549

.

Sincerely,
/s/
Michael J. Cameron
Exhibit
23.2




Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm Consent




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Escalade, Incorporated on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-16279, 333-52475, 333-52477,
333-142756 and 333-142757) of our report dated March 5, 2010, on our audit of
the financial statements of Martin Yale International GmbH as of December 31,
2009 and December 31, 2008 and and for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 2009, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K/A.




/s/
      FALK GmbH & Co KGWirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaftSteuerberatungsgesellschaftHeidelberg/Germany,February 22, 2011
RB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0603 

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

TRENTON MATTHEW LARSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 45-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including May 30, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 28 2022

03/28/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0603