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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 01-005] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. 

# DATES:

Thursday, February 8, 2001, 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street, SW., Room 9H40, Washington, DC 20546. 

      ( print page 4044)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. David M. Lengyel, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Executive Director, Code Q-1, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 202/358-0391, if you plan to attend. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will present its annual report to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Administrator. This is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The major subjects covered will be the National Space Transportation System, International Space Station, Aeronautical Operations, and Workforce Issues. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel is chaired by Mr. Richard D. Blomberg and is composed of nine members and eight consultants. The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room (approximately 60 persons including members of the Panel).

Dated: January 11, 2001.

Beth M. McCormick, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 01-1307 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-U
# C_2019413EN.01005501.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/55

---

Order of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Beats Electronics (i.Beat jess)

(Case T-749/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate - Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Avoidable costs - Article 139(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)

(2019/C 413/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, M. Alber and A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by E. Markakis and D. Walicka, and subsequently by E. Markakis, A. Söder and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States) (represented by: by M. Petersenn, lawyer, and I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2017 (Case R 2236/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Beats Electronics and TrekStor.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action and the cross-claim.

| 2. | TrekStor Ltd and Beats Electronics LLC shall bear their own respective costs and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

TrekStor Ltd and Beats Electronics LLC shall bear their own respective costs and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

| 3. | TrekStor and Beats Electronics shall each pay to the Court the sum of EUR 2 500 under Article 139(a) of its Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

TrekStor and Beats Electronics shall each pay to the Court the sum of EUR 2 500 under Article 139(a) of its Rules of Procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of TheraBiogen, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
 
 (1)    The quarterly report on form 10-Q / A of the Company for the annual period ended November 30, 2010 (“the Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
 
 (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated: March 16, 2011
By:
/s/ Kelly T. HickelKelly T. HickelChief Executive OfficerPrincipal Accounting 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.
NUMBER 13-22-00503-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF G.A.T.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 377th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

On October 17, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal a 

transfer of appellant’s determinate sentence probation to the appropriate district court 

pursuant to 54.051(d) of the Texas Family Code See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.051(d). 

On October 27, 2022, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appeared appellant 

was attempting to appeal an order that was not appealable. On March 14, 2023, after

appellant failed to respond to the clerk’s notice, the matter was abated to the trial court. 
2

The trial court was ordered to determine whether appellant wished to pursue his appeal 

and whether appellant had effectively abandoned his appeal, among other things.

Upon review of the supplemental clerk’s record submitted on March 30, 2023, the 

trial court found appellant is unable to legally pursue his appeal and in the alterative the 

appeal is abandoned. Furthermore, counsel for appellant moved the trial court to withdraw 

the subject appeal.

Appellant has abandoned his appeal and has not responded to the notices from 

the Clerk of the Court requiring a response or other action within the time specified; 

accordingly, the matter is reinstated, and the appeal is dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the 

18th day of May, 2023.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13006]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board

    The Commercial Space Technology, Systems Architecture & Policy 
Panel andThreat Panel Meeting will meet in Kirtland Air Force Base, New 
Mexico on May 31-June 1, 2001 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    The purpose of the meeting is to receive briefings and discuss the 
direction of the study. This meeting will be closed to the public in 
accordance with Section 552b(c) of Title 5, United States Code, 
specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4) thereof.
    For further information, contact the HQ USAF Scientific Advisory 
Board Secretariat at (703) 697-8404.

Janet A. Long,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-13006 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
# C_2019383EN.01002301.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree v Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas

(Case C-172/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 97(5) - Jurisdiction - Infringement proceedings - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which ‘the act of infringement has been committed’ - Advertising and offers for sale displayed on a website and on social media platforms)

(2019/C 383/23)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree

Defendants: Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 97(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a European Union trade mark who considers that his rights have been infringed by the use without his consent, by a third party, of a sign identical to that mark in advertising and offers for sale displayed electronically in relation to products that are identical or similar to the goods for which that mark is registered, may bring an infringement action against that third party before a European Union trade mark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom that advertising and those offers for sale are directed are located, notwithstanding that that third party took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 6550

TRAVIS L. WATSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JOHN DOE #1, Doctor/Practitioner; JOHN DOE #2, Medical Staffer; CAPTAIN J. L. ROLLINS; MICHELLE VASILEESO; JOHN DOE #3; CHARLOTTE EVANS; NURSE MANAGER OLSON; SERGEANT REVERA; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COMBS; JOHN DOE #4; JOHN DOE #5; WARDEN EDDIE THOMAS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Loretta C. Biggs , District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 01043

- LCB

- LPA )

Submitted : July 30, 2021 Decided: August 31, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Travis L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
T r avis L. Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing some claims in Watson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and transferring his remaining claims to the
district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The transferred claims were dismissed without prejudice after Watson moved to voluntarily dismiss his case

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Watson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Moreover, Watson is “not entitled to appeal from a consensual dismissal of [his] claim

. ” See Keena v. Groupon, Inc. , 886 F.3d 360, 365 (4th C ir. 2018)

. Accordingly, although we grant Watson’s motion to amend his informal brief, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
H. R. 2334 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen 

An Act 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic 

in Odessa, Texas, as the ‘‘Wilson and Young Medal of Honor VA Clinic’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF WILSON AND YOUNG MEDAL OF HONOR 

VA CLINIC. 

(a) FINDING.—Congress finds that Private First Class Alfred 

‘‘Mac’’ Wilson of the Marine Corps and Staff Sergeant Marvin 

‘‘Rex’’ Young of the Army were both posthumously awarded the 

Medal of Honor for their heroic actions in the Vietnam War. 

(b) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Odessa, Texas, shall after the date 

of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as the 

‘‘Wilson and Young Medal of Honor VA Clinic’’. 

(c) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (b) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Wilson and Young Medal of Honor VA Clinic’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Case 1:07-cv-05558-AKH     Document 5      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
# C_2019220EN.01001001.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v Akvilė Jarmuškienė

(Case C-265/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common System of Value Added Tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for small enterprises - Articles 282 to 292 - VAT exemption for small enterprises whose annual turnover is below the fixed threshold - Simultaneous supply of two immovable properties in a single transaction - Annual turnover limit exceeded in view of the sale price of one of the two properties - Obligation to pay tax on the total value of the transaction)

(2019/C 220/13)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Respondent: Akvilė Jarmuškienė

Other party: Vilniaus apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 282 to 292 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that where a supply, to the same purchaser, comprises two immovable properties, linked by their nature and coming under a single contract of sale, and the annual turnover limit serving as a reference for the purposes of applying the special scheme for small enterprises provided for by that directive is exceeded, the taxable person is required to pay tax on the basis of the entire value of the supply in question, that is to say, taking into account the value of both the properties being supplied, even where taking into account the value of one of those properties would not lead to that annual limit being exceeded.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 32-2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund
VI,  L.P.,  Series 10 (the  "Partnership")  for the year ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  and  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  I,  Thomas  J.  Riha,  Chief
Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent  that such
     provisions   require  the  filing  of  an  opinion  of  registiered  public
     accountants to accompany the Partnership's financial statements; and

2.   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects,   the  financial  condition  and  result  of  operations  of  the
     Partnership.




/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
December 9, 2005
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RSC Holdings
III, LLC and RSC Equipment Rental, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    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)
    
    [Not Applicable]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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    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 (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information;
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.
  /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident and 
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2017078EN.01003802.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/38

---

Action brought on 20 January 2017 — Kwang Yang Motor v EUIPO — Schmidt (CK1)

(Case T-45/17)

(2017/C 078/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co., Ltd (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) (represented by: A. González Hähnlein and A. Kleinheyer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Udo Schmidt (Reken, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘CK1’ — Application for registration No 12 514 956

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2016 in Case R 2193/2015-2

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 EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2072 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2072

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the charitable 
              mileage rate with the business travel rate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2019

  Mr. Peterson (for himself and Mr. Stauber) 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 equalize the charitable 
              mileage rate with the business travel rate.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Volunteer Driver Tax Appreciation 
Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CHARITABLE MILEAGE RATE.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (i) of section 170 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``14 cents per mile'' and 
inserting ``the rate determined by the Secretary, which rate shall not 
be less than the standard mileage rate used for purposes of sections 
162 and 212''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable year beginning after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```