alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-317-001]

Take notice that on May 14, 2001, Reliant Energy Gas Transmission Company (REGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to be effective May 1, 2001:

Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 253

REGT states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's order issued April 27, 2001 in Docket No. RP01-317-000.

Any person  desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-12956  Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Eurex Clearing AG 

ECAG Rule Certification 065-22 

September 8, 2022 

1. The text of the proposed amendments to the Clearing Conditions (“Clearing Conditions”) of Eurex 

Clearing AG (“Eurex Clearing”) and Price List (“Price List”) of Eurex Clearing is appended as Attachment 

A. Any additions are underlined and any deletions are struck through. 

2. The date of intended implementation is October 17, 2022. 

3. Attached please find a certification that: (1) these amendments comply with the Commodity Exchange 

Act (the “Act”), and the Commission’s regulations thereunder; and (2) concurrent with the filing of this 

submission, Eurex Clearing is posting a copy of this filing to its website at: https://www.eurex.com/ecen/rules-regs/regulations/cftc-dco-filings. 

4. A concise explanation and analysis of the operation, purpose, and effect of the amended rule appears 

below. 

5. There were no opposing views expressed regarding these amended rules. 

6. Confidential treatment is not requested. 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

CONCISE EXPLANATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE OPERATION, PURPOSE, AND EFFECT OF 

THE PROPOSED RULE AND ITS COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, 

INCLUDING CORE PRINCIPLES AND THE COMMISSION’S REGULATIONS THEREUNDER 

Eurex Clearing is proposing to amend the Clearing Conditions and Price List to reflect the introduction of 

Euro High Yield Index Futures on Eurex Deutschland, as outlined in Eurex Clearing Circular 065/22, which 

is appended as Attachment A. Eurex Clearing will provide clearing services for this contract. For 

avoidance of doubt, Eurex Clearing will clear these contracts outside the scope of its DCO license, which 

applies only to swaps. 

Further information regarding the operation, purpose, and effect of the proposed amendments is discussed 

in Attachment A. 

Eurex Clearing has identified the following derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) Core Principle as 

potentially being relevant to the above amendments: 

1. DCO Core Principle C (Participant and Product Eligibility): The proposed amendments will 

comply with DCO Core Principle C because the amendments list new contracts, which Eurex 

Clearing clears outside the scope of its DCO license, and all products cleared by Eurex Clearing 

under its DCO license will continue to be subject to appropriate standards in compliance with this 

Core Principle. 
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5c OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT, 7 

U.S.C. §7a-2 AND COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION RULE 40.6, 17 C.F.R. §40.6 

I hereby certify that: 

(1) the amendments comply with the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Commission’s 

regulations thereunder; and 

(2) concurrent with the filing of this submission, Eurex Clearing is posting a copy of thisfiling 

to its website at: https://www.eurex.com/ec-en/rules-regs/regulations/cftc-dco-filings. 

/s/ Eric Seinsheimer 

By: Eric Seinsheimer

Title: US CCO, Eurex Clearing AG 

Dated: September 8, 2022
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2532
DIXIE LEDFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusSUMTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT #17; SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL BOARD SELF-INSURED TRUST FUND; SOUTH CAROLINA WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION FUND; ALEXIS INSURANCE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-96-2323-3-19-BC) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dixie Ledford, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil action. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judgerecommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waiveappellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate r eview. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

AFFIRMED
July 28, 2015 Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Third Court of Appeals P.O. Box 12547 Austin, Texas 78711 - 2457 VIA E - MAIL: 3 rdclerksandreporters@txcourts.gov Re: Court of Appeals No. 03 - 15 - 004 46 - CV Trial Court Cause No. D - 1 - GN - 10 - 000772 Style: In re: Voda Petroleum State Superfund Site Litigation Dear Mr. Kyle, I was notified yesterday, July 27, 2015, requesting the record for the above - referenced matter . I have sent an invoice to transcribe the record to the appellant. Once I receive payment, I will notify the Third Court of Appeals. If you need any further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to call or e - mail m e at alicia.racanelli@traviscountytx.gov . Very truly yours, /s/ Alicia Racanelli Alicia Racanelli Of ficial Court Reporter Alicia Racanelli, CSR Official Court Reporter 201 st Judicial District Court Room 327 1000 Guadalupe Street Austin, Texas 78701 Phone: (512) 854 - 4028 Fax: (512) 854 - 2268
No. 403.

#### Robert A. Graham, Petitioner, *v.*The Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company.

October 19, 1908.

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

*Mr. Thomas D. Ramhaut*and *Mr. C. Larue Munson*for petitioner. ‘ *Mr. Maxwell Evarts*for respondent.
# C_2017221EN.01002901.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/29

---

Action brought on 14 April 2017 — L v Parliament

(Case T-59/17)

(2017/C 221/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: L (represented by: I. Coutant Peyre, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the decision of the Parliament to dismiss the applicant dated 24/06/2016 and received on 25/07/2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the Parliament to dismiss the applicant dated 24/06/2016 and received on 25/07/2016;

| — | order the Parliament to pay non-pecuniary damages of 100 000 euros; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay non-pecuniary damages of 100 000 euros; and

| — | order the Parliament to pay legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of whistle-blowers as defined by Articles 22 (a), Article 22 (b) of the Staff Regulations, Article 6(1) of the Internal Rules. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of whistle-blowers as defined by Articles 22 (a), Article 22 (b) of the Staff Regulations, Article 6(1) of the Internal Rules.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging absence of motivation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging absence of motivation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging obvious error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging obvious error of assessment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principal of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principal of proportionality.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging absence of response by the Parliament to the applicant’s request of assistance, breach of the right to the defence, breach of the right to conciliation. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging absence of response by the Parliament to the applicant’s request of assistance, breach of the right to the defence, breach of the right to conciliation.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the right of access to the documents. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the right of access to the documents.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.

---
# C_2017104EN.01005502.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/55

---

Action brought on 31 January 2017 — Safe Skies v EUIPO — Travel Sentry (TSA LOCK)

(Case T-60/17)

(2017/C 104/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Safe Skies LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. Schwepler, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Travel Sentry, Inc. (Windermere, Florida, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TSA LOCK’ — EU trade mark No 4 530 168

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2016 in Case R 233/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the court and to order the (potential) Intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the court and to order the (potential) Intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| — | set a date for an Oral Hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an Oral Hearing. |
| --- | --- |

—

set a date for an Oral Hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an Oral Hearing.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

o

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

o

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009.

o

---
EXHIBIT 11







STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



The basic net loss per share is determined by dividing the net loss by the
weighted average common shares outstanding.  The diluted net loss per share
includes Common Stock equivalents (options and warrants).

|                               | 2004 | 2003
|------------------------------ | ---- | ----
|                               |      |     
|                               |      |     
|Net Loss                       |      |     
|                               |      |     
|                               |      |     
|                               |      |     
|Average Shares Outstanding     |      |     
|                               |      |     
|Effect of dilutive securities: |      |     
|                               |      |     
|Options *                      |      |     
|                               |      |     
|Warrants *                     |      |     
|                               |      |     
|                               |      |     
|                               |      |     
|Equivalent shares              |      |     
|                               |      |     
|                               |      |     
|                               |      |     
|                               |      |     
|Loss per Share                 |      |     
|                               |      |     

*

All
potential common shares are anti-dilutive for 2004 and 2003 and are excluded from the
calculation    of loss per share.




---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129792 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129792 

 COA: 264292 

Wayne CC: 04-012542-01 

DEAN SCOT JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

10123 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 30, 2006 

Clerk
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2090 

To clarify the status of the North Country, Ice Age, and New England 

National Scenic Trails as units of the National Park System, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2019 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself and Mr. POCAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To clarify the status of the North Country, Ice Age, and 

New England National Scenic Trails as units of the 

National Park System, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘National Scenic Trails 

5 Parity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NORTH COUNTRY NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL. 

7 Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails System Act (16 

8 U.S.C. 1244(a)(8)) is amended in the third sentence by 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2090 IH

1 inserting ‘‘as a unit of the National Park System’’ before 

2 the period at the end. 

3 SEC. 3. ICE AGE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL. 

4 Section 5(a)(10) of the National Trails System Act 

5 (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(10)) is amended by striking the third 

6 and fourth sentences and inserting ‘‘The trail shall be ad7 ministered by the Secretary of the Interior as a unit of 

8 the National Park System.’’. 

9 SEC. 4. NEW ENGLAND NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL. 

10 Section 5(a)(28) of the National Trails System Act 

11 (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(28)) is amended in the third sentence 

12 by inserting ‘‘as a unit of the National Park System,’’ 

13 after ‘‘administer the trail’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

---

# FORM 8-K

---

# CURRENT REPORT

# PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of Report (date of earliest event reported): November 10, 2006

---

CNS, Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Delaware
(State Or Other Jurisdiction Of Incorporation)

|0-16612                  | 41-1580270                          
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|(Commission File Number) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

|7615 Smetana LaneEden Prairie, MN        | 55344     
|---------------------------------------- | ----------
|(Address Of Principal Executive Offices) | (Zip Code)

(952) 229-1500
Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code

---



Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (seeGeneral Instruction A.2. below):



| | o |  | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities
Act (17 CFR 230.425)
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | x |  | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act
(17 CFR 240.14a-12)
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | o |  | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under
the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | o |  | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under
the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







---

Items under Sections 1 through 7 are not applicable and therefore omitted.



Item 8.01
        Other Events




On November 10, 2006, the Company issued a press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 relating to its Special Meeting of Stockholders.



Item 9.01
        Financial Statements And Exhibits




Exhibit No.
        
        Description99.1
        
        Press Release issued on November 10, 2006.






SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



CNS, INC.By:
        /s/ Marti MorfittMarti Morfitt
President and Chief Executive Officer






Date:
        November 13, 2006




---
# C_2019357EN.01003401.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/34

---

Order of the General Court of 22 July 2019 — Younique v EUIPO — Jafer Enterprises R&D (younique products)

(Case T-434/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 357/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Younique LLC (Alpine, Utah, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. García Murillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Jafer Enterprises R&D, SLU (Granollers, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 (Case R 1564/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Jafer Enterprises R&D and Younique.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Younique LLC shall bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Younique LLC shall bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

| 3. | Jafer Enterprises R&D, SLU shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Jafer Enterprises R&D, SLU shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---