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. RP00-426-003]

Take notice that on May 9, 2001, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective April 1, 2001:

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 1

Sheet No. 19

Original Sheet No. 40

Sheet No. 41

Texas Gas states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect the first of a new negotiated rate/non-conforming contract in its tariff as required Section 154.112(b) of the Commission's regulations and as directed by Commission Letter Order dated April 27, 2001.

Texas Gas states that copies of the revised tariff sheet is being mailed to Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections                           ( print page 27955)                        385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 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. 01-12651 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, DC 20549

---

# FORM 8-K/A

---

(Amendment No. 1)

# CURRENT REPORT

# Pursuant To Section 13 Or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act Of 1934

# Date of Report (Date of Earliest Event Reported):   May 1, 2006

---

CapSource Financial, Inc.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

|Colorado                                      |  | 1-31730                  |  | 84-1334453                        | 
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | --------------------------------- | 
|(State or Other Jurisdiction ofIncorporation) |  | (Commission File Number) |  | (IRS Employer Identification No.) | 
|                                             
|2305 Canyon Boulevard, Suite 103Boulder, CO   |  | 80302                    | 
|(Address of Principal Executive Offices)      |  | (Zip Code)               | 

Registrants telephone number, including area
code:   (303) 245-0515

Not Applicable
(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

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:

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

|o |  | 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))
|- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





---

8.01    Other Events

The registrant hereby amends the
cover page of its current report on Form 8-K filed on May 5, 2006 (the Initial 8-K) by
changing the Date of the Report (Date of Earliest Event Reported) appearing on the cover
page to May 1, 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 hereunto duly authorized.

|                    | CAPSOURCE FINANCIAL, INC.(Registrant)
|------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                   
|Date:   May 8, 2006 | By:                                  
|                    |                                      
|                   

2

---
# C_2018052EN.01004301.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/43

---

Action brought on 29 December 2017 — DRH Licensing & Managing v EUIPO — Merck (Flexagil)

(Case T-831/17)

(2018/C 052/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DRH Licensing & Managing AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Salomonowitz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

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 figurative mark including the word element ‘Flexagil’ — EU trade mark No 7 301 237

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 October 2017 in Case R 2043/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision R 2043/2016-4 of the Board of Appeal of 17 October 2017 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision R 2043/2016-4 of the Board of Appeal of 17 October 2017 in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings and in the appeal proceedings relating to Case R 2043/2016. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings and in the appeal proceedings relating to Case R 2043/2016.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation 2017/1001.

---
143 So. 559

#### REED v. THOMPSON.

7 Div. 125.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 6, 1932.

L. H. Ellis, of Columbiana, for appellant.

Stokely, Serivner, Dominick & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON, C. J.

The plaintiff obtained a verdict, and upon a motion for new trial the trial court set aside the verdict, and the plaintiff appeals from the judgment granting the new trial as authorized by section 6088 of the Code of 1923.

In the early case of Cobb v. Malone & Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738, 740, repeatedly cited and followed, the rule was laid down that upon motion for new trial, based upon the fact that the verdict or judgment was contrary to the evidence, a presumption will be indulged in favor of the action of the trial *382court when there is a conflict in the evidence. That is, on appeal in such eases, this court will not reverse an order granting a new trial, “unless the evidence plainly and palpably supports the verdict,” and it will not reverse an order refusing a new trial on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict, or that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, “unless, after allowing all reasonable presumptions of its correctness, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince the court that it is wrong and unjust.”

There was a conflict in the evidence as to the nature of the contract of employment; the plaintiff testifying to one kind of contract and the defendant another. There was also evidence that plaintiff was claiming more than he was entitled to out of the dairy, and we are not prepared to say that the evidence so plainly and palpably supported the verdict as to put the trial court in error for granting a new trial, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOITLDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
8739 Research Drive 

Charlotte, NC 28288

								WACHOVIA SECURITIES

 

OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

        Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of            August 15, 2001, by and among Wachovia Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. (formerly know as First Union Mortgage Securities, Inc.) as Depositor, Wachovia Bank, National Association (formerly     know as First Union National Bank) as Master Servicer, Lennar Partners, Inc. as Special Servicer,       and Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association as Trustee and LaSalle Bank National Association as Paying Agent with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2001 C3 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

	Pursuant to Section 3.13 of this Agreement, Timothy E. Steward and Clyde M.             Alexander, Directors of the Master Servicer, do hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 and of performance under the Agreement during such period has been made under our supervision; and

2. To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all     its obligations under  the  Agreement in all material respects throughout the period                                                                                             January 1, 2003 through  December 31, 2003; and

3. The Master Servicer has received no notice regarding qualification, or challenging the    status of REMIC I, REMIC II as a REMIC under the REMIC Provisions or of the        Grantor Trust as a "Grantor Trust" for income tax purposes under the Grantor Trust  Provisions from the Internal Revenue Service or any other governmental agency or body.

             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the 12th day of March, 2004.

 

Timothy E. Steward  			Clyde M. Alexander

Timothy E. Steward, Director 			Clyde M. Alexander, Director

Wachovia Bank, National Association		Wachovia Bank, National Association	

(formerly know as First Union	 National    	(formerly know as First Union National

 Bank)		     			             Bank)

 

FUNB 2001 C3  Inv #515/615
----

|   | /s/ Kim Bradford                                     |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |         |
|--------|--------------|
|   | Kim Bradford |

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
|--------|-------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Kim Bradford                                   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |          |
|--------|---------------|
|   | Kim Bradford, |

|   | President and Chief Executive Officer, |
|--------|----------------------------------------|

|   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
|--------|-------------------------------|

----
# EUR-Lex - 52005DP0268(02) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005DP0268(02)

**European Parliament decision on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Umberto Bossi (2004/2101(IMM)) **

*
Official Journal 157 E , 06/07/2006 P. 0070 - 0070 *

1.

European Parliament decision on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Umberto Bossi (2004/2101(IMM))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the request by a barrister acting for Mr Umberto Bossi, for defence of his immunity in connection with criminal proceedings pending before the Brescia District Court, of 7 May 2004, announced in plenary sitting on 22 July 2004,

- having regard to Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

- having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986 [1] of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,

- having regard to Rules 6(3) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0210/2005),

A. whereas Umberto Bossi was a Member of the European Parliament in the fourth legislative term (start of mandate on 19 July 1994, mandate verified on 15 November 1994, mandate expired on 19 July 1999) and in the fifth legislative term (start of mandate on 20 July 1999, mandate verified on 15 December 1999, mandate expired on 10 June 2001 for incompatibility),

B. whereas Members of the European Parliament may not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties [2],

1. Decides to defend the immunity and privileges of Umberto Bossi;

2. Proposes, pursuant to Article 9 of the above-mentioned Protocol and having regard to the proceedings of the relevant Member State, to declare that the proceedings in question should not be continued; therefore calls on the Court to draw the appropriate conclusions;

3. Instructs its President immediately to forward this decision and the report of the committee responsible to the Brescia District Court.

[1] Case 101/63: Wagner v. Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195 and Case 149/85: Wybot v. Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391.

[2] Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities.

--------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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
  (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: November 6, 2009
    /s/ Steven R. WassermanSteven R. WassermanVice President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2019399EN.01004501.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2019 — BTC v Commission

(Case T-786/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Grant agreement entered into in the context of the eTEN framework programme, relating to trans-European telecommunications networks - ‘SafeChemo’ project - Investigation report from OLAF finding certain expenses incurred to be ineligible - Repayment in part of the sums paid - Counterclaim)

(2019/C 399/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BTC Srl (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: L. von Lutterotti and A. Frei, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment (i) of Commission Decision Ares(2017) 4709558 of 27 September 2017 demanding repayment of an amount paid to the applicant pursuant to Agreement C046311 for the financing of the ‘ePrescription and Automation for a Safe Management of Cytostatistics’ project, entered into in the context of the eTEN programme, relating to trans-European telecommunications networks, (ii) of the Commission’s letter Ares(2017) 4790311 of 2 October 2017 communicating Debit Note No 3241712708, and (iii) of Debit Note No 3241712708, and, second, application under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission’s demand for repayment is unfounded and a counterclaim seeking an order against the applicant for repayment of an amount wrongfully paid under that agreement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action brought by BTC Srl; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action brought by BTC Srl;

| 2. | Orders BTC to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 380 989.49, plus default interest at the rate of 3.5% from 17 November 2017 until payment in full of that amount; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BTC to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 380 989.49, plus default interest at the rate of 3.5% from 17 November 2017 until payment in full of that amount;

| 3. | Orders BTC to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders BTC to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUIYAN CHEN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-72427 

Agency No. A205-190-818

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Huiyan Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration 

judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 

F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-72427 

The BIA erred in determining that Chen did not establish prejudice resulting 

from her former counsel’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal. See Ray v. 

Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 587 (9th Cir. 2006) (applying a presumption of prejudice 

where petitioner’s counsel failed to file an appeal). Although the BIA properly 

concluded that Chen is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, the BIA

reasoned that the presumption was rebutted, and Chen therefore did not show 

prejudice, because she failed to allege that the outcome of her case might have 

been different had counsel timely filed a notice of appeal. But Chen only needed to 

demonstrate plausible grounds for asylum and related relief in order to show

prejudice. See id. at 589 (presumption of prejudice was not rebutted because 

petitioner’s personal account of persecution at the hands of government officials 

showed plausible grounds for asylum, despite IJ’s adverse credibility 

determination); Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(presumption of prejudice is not rebutted if a petitioner is able to show plausible 

grounds for relief).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for the BIA to 

determine whether Chen demonstrated plausible grounds for relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.