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 Transportation

###### Office of The Secretary 

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. 

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2001-9583.                 

*Date Filed:*                     April 30, 2001.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:*

 PSC/Reso/106 dated November 14, 2000 

 Expedited Resolutions/Recommended Practices r1-10 

 PSC/Reso/107 dated December 5, 2000 

 Book of Finally Adopted Resolutions/RPs r11-30 

 Minutes—PSC/MINS/004 dated December 5, 2000 

 Intended effective date: January 1/June 1, 2001 

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2001-9606.                 

*Date Filed:*                     May 1, 2001.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:*

 PTC COMP 0801 dated 1 May 2001 

 Mail Vote 122—Resolution 011 

 Mileages and Routes for Tariffs Purposes (Amending) 

 Intended effective date: 1 June 2001 

Dorothy Y. Beard,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 01-12549  Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Quantum Materials Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chris Benjamin, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 By:
/s/ CHRIS BENJAMINChris Benjamin,Principal Financial OfficerFebruary 28, 2013
#### In the Matter of: ALL AMERICAN BOTTLED WATER CORPORATION, Debtor, Michael D. Hitt, in his capacity as the trustee for the bankruptcy estate of All American Bottled Water Corporation, Appellant, v. Barney Ng; Re Loans LLC; Bar K Inc.; Pensco Trust Co., Appellees.

No. 09-36050.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 1, 2010.

Decided Nov. 18, 2010.

Robert J. Curran, Esquire, Timothy William Dore, Bryan C. Graff, Esquire, Ryan, Swanson & Cleveland, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.

Sheena Ramona Aebig, Anthony Stephen Broadman, Esquire, Jerry B. Ed-monds, Esquire, Daniel W. Ferm, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellees.

*112Before: B. FLETCHER, FERNANDEZ and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The trustee appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a motion to avoid certain transfers made by the debtor to defendants Bar K and Ng, on the grounds that the transfers allegedly ran afoul of state fraudulent transfer laws and federal bankruptcy law. *See*Wash. Rev.Code §§ 19.40.041, 19.40.051; 11 U.S.C. § 544(b). We affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court. *Greene v. Savage (In re Greene),*583 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir.2009). We review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and its factual findings for clear error. *Id.*We may affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision on any ground fairly supported by the record. *Wirum v. Warren (In re Warren),*568 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir.2009).

The bankruptcy court noted that the challenged transfer — the payment of points to Bar K and Ng — was part of an overall plan to provide the debtor with short-term funding needed to complete a purchase and begin the development of a water bottling plant. It found that all steps of the plan, including the payments to the defendants, involved transactions that were “integral to consummating [the] business plan.” The points payments in particular constituted standard fees for loan servicing. We agree with this assessment. Accordingly, we hold that the transfers to Bar K and Ng were part of a single loan transaction.

Furthermore, regardless of whether the transfers to Bar K and Ng are viewed separately or as part of a single transaction, the debtor received reasonably equivalent value for the transfers. The district court and bankruptcy court both found that the debtor would not have received $25 million in short-term funds if it had not paid these points to the defendants. Furthermore, neither party suggests that an exchange for $32 million in debt for $25 million in immediate assets does not constitute a transfer for reasonably equivalent value, and neither party suggests that the transaction was conducted at less than arms-length or was otherwise unfair.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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.                  

###### Merit Systems Protection Board

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Thursday, May 31, 2001.

# PLACE: 

Board Conference Room, Sixth Floor, 1615 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419.

# STATUS: 

The meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Board adjudication of the Office of Personnel Management's Request for Reconsideration in Azdell and Fishman v.  Office of Personnel Management, DC-300A-97-0368-R-1 and DC-300A-97-0369-R-1.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 

Matthew Shannon, Counsel to the Clerk of the Board, (202) 653-7200.

Dated: May 15, 2001.

Robert E. Taylor,

Clerk of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01-12614 Filed 5-15-01; 3:18 pm]

BILLING CODE 7400-01-M
# C_2018427EN.01010301.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/103 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/103

---

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

(Case T-423/17) (1)

(2018/C 427/136)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1 ARCHSTONE-SMITH TRUST
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (Dollar amounts in thousands) (Unaudited) Years Ended December 31,2003 (1)
    
    2002 (1)
    
    2001 (1)
    
    2000 (1)
    
    1999 (1)Earnings from operations
    
    $
    108,262
    
    
    $
    127,619
    
    
    $
    130,070
    
    
    $
    139,295
    
    
    $
    140,920Add:Interest expense
    
    
    186,832
    
    
    
    190,005
    
    
    
    88,081
    
    
    
    107,231
    
    
    
    94,471Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    295,094
    
    
    $
    317,624
    
    
    $
    218,151
    
    
    $
    246,526
    
    
    $
    235,391Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    186,832
    
    
    $
    190,005
    
    
    $
    88,081
    
    
    $
    107,231
    
    
    $
    94,471Capitalized interest
    
    
    26,854
    
    
    
    32,377
    
    
    
    31,600
    
    
    
    37,079
    
    
    
    41,099Total fixed charges
    
    $
    213,686
    
    
    $
    222,382
    
    
    $
    119,681
    
    
    $
    144,310
    
    
    $
    135,570Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.8
    
    
    
    1.7
    
    
    
    1.7
   (1)
    
    Net earnings from discontinued operations have been reclassified
for all years presented.
# C_2017063EN.01003701.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/37

---

Action brought on 3 January 2017 — J.M.-E.V. e hijos v EUIPO — Masi (MASSI)

(Case T-2/17)

(2017/C 063/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: J.M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alberto Masi (Milan, Italy)

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: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASSI’ — EU trade mark No 414 086

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2016 (rectified by decision of 3 November 2016) in Case R 793/2015-1

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;

| — | reject the application for a declaration of invalidity filed by Mr. Alberto Masi against EUTM Registration No. 414086 ‘MASSI’ in class 12; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for a declaration of invalidity filed by Mr. Alberto Masi against EUTM Registration No. 414086 ‘MASSI’ in class 12;

| — | order EUIPO, and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO in case it takes part in these proceedings, to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO, and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO in case it takes part in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 56(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (res judicata); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 56(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (res judicata);

| — | Lack of application of Article 53(1)(a) in connection with Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No. 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lack of application of Article 53(1)(a) in connection with Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No. 207/2009.

---
# C_2017277EN.01005001.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/50

---

Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Vienna International Hotelmanagement v EUIPO (Vienna House)

(Case T-402/17)

(2017/C 277/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vienna International Hotelmanagement AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Zrzavy, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Vienna House’ — Application No 14 501 357

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 333/2016-4

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE, LLC

400 South 4th Street | 130 Grain Exchange Building | Minneapolis, MN 55415

612-321-7101

mgex.com

Via Portal Submission July 13, 2023

 MGEX Submission No. 23-40

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments Pursuant to Regulation 40.6(d)

Dear Secretary Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commodity Exchange Act Section 5c and Commodity Futures Trading Commission Regulation 

40.6(d), the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, LLC (“MGEX”) submits this Weekly Notification of the following 

rule amendments made effective during the preceding week:

• July 5, 2023 Memo to MGEX Clearing Members advising of approved changes to Hard Red Spring 

Wheat (HRSW) spread margin rates and Volatility Scan Range rates. These changes were 

effective for positions held at the close of business on Thursday, July 6, 2023.

A copy of the above-referenced memo is available at http://www.mgex.com under the “Announcements” 

tab. If there are any questions regarding this submission, please contact me at (612) 321-7176 or 

jkrause@mgex.com. 

Sincerely, 

James D. Krause

Associate Corporate Counsel, DCO & Int’l
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136905 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN REGENTS and Stephen J. Markman, 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH Justices 

SYSTEM, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 136905 

 COA: 276710 

Washtenaw CC: 06-000034-CK 

TITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2008 

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

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

CAVANAGH, WEAVER, and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

p1119 

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. 

November 26, 2008 

 Clerk
Case 1:07-cv-05809-AKH     Document 8      Filed 03/14/2008     Page 1 of 1
# C_2017402EN.01003602.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/36

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 29 September 2017 — Amplexor Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-211/17 R)

((Interim measures - Public service contracts - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency))

(2017/C 402/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Amplexor Luxembourg Sàrl (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures seeking, first, the suspension of operation of the decision of 13 February 2017 of the Publications Office of the European Union (PO) in the call for tenders No 10651, inasmuch as it places the tender of the consortium Jouve and Skrivanek in first place, and secondly, the suspension of the framework contract concluded between the PO and that consortium.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2019263EN.01001601.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — P. M., N. G.d.M., P. V.d.S. v Ministerraad

(Case C-264/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 10, (c), and (d)(i),(ii) and (v) - Validity - Scope - Exclusion of arbitration and conciliation services and of certain legal services - Principles of equal treatment and subsidiarity - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU)

(2019/C 263/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: P. M., N. G.d.M., P. V.d.S.

Defendant: Ministerraad

Operative part of the judgment

The examination of the question referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the provisions of Article 10(c) and (d)(i),(ii) and (v) of Directive 2014/24/EU, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, having regard to the principles of equal treatment and subsidiarity, and also Articles 49 and 56 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Real Estate Associates Limited (the"Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D.Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, andStephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
(104 So. 264)

#### LON L. PHILLIPS et al. v. W. M. BAILEY.

(4 Div. 129.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 6, 1924.

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; W.. L. Parks, Judge.

. Ball & Beckwith, of Montgomery, and San-. ders & Brunson, o'f Elba, for appellants.

Fleming & Yarbrough, of Enterprise, M. A. Owen, of Elba, and M. S. Carmichael, of Montgomery, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE, J.

On the authority of Phillips v. Morrow, 104 So. 260,1 a companion ease to this, and involving the same questions, the *143judgment in this ease will be reversed upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case. *

Reversed and remanded.

All the Justices concur, except ANDERSON, O.J., and GARDNER, J., who dissent.

1

 Ante, p. 139.
#### Grain-Drill Manuf’g Co. *v.*Reinstedler.1

*Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri,*

September 28, 1885.

Patents—Practice—Holding Case Open for Decision upon Appeal Taken in Another Suit.

Where two suits were brought for the infringement of a patent, in different circuits,—one against the manufacturer of the infringing device, and tile other against a dealer,—and the former was decided in the defendant’s favor, and the latter thereafter, after remaining pending over four years, was heard, and was submitted upon the same evidence taken in the other case, and the complainant asked that the case might be allowed to remain open until an appeal from the decree in the suit against the manufacturer could be heard and determined, *held,*that there being no special reasons for granting the request, the case could not be kept standing open any longer; and that the bill should be dismissed.

In Equity.

The defense in this ease was substantially the same as in the Indiana case referred to below, and the same evidence was introduced in both cases.

*Wood & Boyd,*for complainant.

*Stein & Peek,*for defendant.

1

 Reported by Benj. P. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.

Brewer, J.,

*(orally.)*The bill in this case will be dismissed. It is an action against a dealer for infringement. The actio^has been *199pending in this court more than four years. In an action brought in the circuit court of Indiana against the manufacturer, a decree has been entered in favor of the defendant dismissing the bill.1 The only application here is that this case shall stand open until an appeal from that decree shall be heard and determined in the supreme court. No special reasons are shown, and under such circumstances this court ought not to keep this case standing against the defendant for possibly three or four years. The bill will be dismissed.

1

 Grain Drill Manuf'rs Co. v. Rude, 23 Fed. Rep. 348.