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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

      ( print page 52397)    
*Correction:*                     Notice of program announcement number DP-05-132 was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 12, 2005, Volume 70, Number 155, pages 47214-47215. The meeting has been cancelled.                 

*Time and Date:*                     3 p.m.-5 p.m., September 1, 2005 (Closed).                 

*Meeting Location:*                     Teleconference.                 

For Further Information Contact: Gwen Cattledge, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 4770 Buford Highway, MS-K92, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (770) 488-4655. 

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                 

Diane Allen, 

Director, Acting Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 05-17592 Filed 8-31-05; 11:41 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 of Chinawe.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Man Keung Wai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Man Keung Wai      
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 31, 2015         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Chinawe.com Inc. and will be retained by Chinawe.com Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.**

** **

**Certification of Michael Maturo, President, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of**

**Reckson Associates Realty Corp.,**

**Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

I, Michael Maturo, President, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Reckson Associates Realty Corp. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|   | 1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Dated:             May 9, 2006 |   |     |
|--------------------------------|--------|----------|
|                           |   | By  | /s/ Michael Maturo |
|                           |   |     |  

 

 

Michael Maturo,President, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officerand Director

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Reckson Associates Realty Corp. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

  |
# C_2023252EN.01003301.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 May 2023 — ‘Entain Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-287/23, Entain Services (Bulgaria))

(2023/C 252/36)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Entain Services (Bulgaria)’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Sofia pri sentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred

| 1. | Do national rules and national interpretative practice under which dividends distributed to companies resident in Gibraltar are taxed at source (whereas dividends distributed to companies resident in Bulgaria or in other Member States are exempt from withholding tax without those companies having to satisfy any requirement) constitute a discriminatory restriction on the freedom of establishment guaranteed under EU law pursuant to Article 49 and on the free movement of capital guaranteed under EU law pursuant to Article 63 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do national rules and national interpretative practice under which dividends distributed to companies resident in Gibraltar are taxed at source (whereas dividends distributed to companies resident in Bulgaria or in other Member States are exempt from withholding tax without those companies having to satisfy any requirement) constitute a discriminatory restriction on the freedom of establishment guaranteed under EU law pursuant to Article 49 and on the free movement of capital guaranteed under EU law pursuant to Article 63 TFEU?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is that discriminatory restriction compatible with EU law where the legislator, in enacting the relevant national legislation, has not set out any public policy, public security or public health reasons justifying the need to impose those restrictions in respect of the companies incorporated in Gibraltar? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is that discriminatory restriction compatible with EU law where the legislator, in enacting the relevant national legislation, has not set out any public policy, public security or public health reasons justifying the need to impose those restrictions in respect of the companies incorporated in Gibraltar?

---
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 of Chinawe.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2013,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Man Keung Wai, Chief 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 of 2002, 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Man Keung Wai      
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 24, 2014         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Chinawe.com Inc. and will be retained by Chinawe.com Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of Intermec, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Fredric B. Anderson,Vice President and Controller, acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange 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 Company.
| /s/ FREDRIC B. ANDERSON          |     |     |
|----------------------------------|----------|----------|
| Fredric B. Anderson              |     |     |
| *Vice President and Controller*  | * * | * * |
| *Acting Chief Financial Officer* | * * | * * |
| March 15, 2006              |     |     |

 

----
# C_2023314EN.01000602.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 22 June 2023 — Passenger A v Finnair Oyj

(Case C-385/23, Finnair)

(2023/C 314/09)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Passenger A

Defendant: Finnair Oyj

Questions referred

| 1. | Can an air carrier rely on extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) on the sole ground that the aircraft manufacturer discovered the existence of a hidden design defect detrimental to flight safety and affecting the entire aircraft type, even though that discovery was not made until after the flight was delayed and cancelled? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can an air carrier rely on extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) on the sole ground that the aircraft manufacturer discovered the existence of a hidden design defect detrimental to flight safety and affecting the entire aircraft type, even though that discovery was not made until after the flight was delayed and cancelled?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the negative, and it falls to be examined whether the circumstances in question are the result of events which are inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are not beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of their nature or origin, is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the premature failure of certain technical parts of an aircraft applicable in a case such as that here, in which, at the time when the flight was cancelled, neither the manufacturer nor the air carrier knew the nature of the defect in the new aircraft type at issue or how it could be rectified? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, and it falls to be examined whether the circumstances in question are the result of events which are inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are not beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of their nature or origin, is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the premature failure of certain technical parts of an aircraft applicable in a case such as that here, in which, at the time when the flight was cancelled, neither the manufacturer nor the air carrier knew the nature of the defect in the new aircraft type at issue or how it could be rectified?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
# C_2023304EN.01002801.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/28

---

Action brought on 11 July 2023 — Essilor International v EUIPO — Carl Zeiss Vision (MYOLUX)

(Case T-383/23)

(2023/C 304/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Essilor International (Charenton-le-Pont, France) (represented by: A. Parassina and A. Giovannardi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carl Zeiss Vision GmbH (Aalen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MYOLUX — Application for registration No 18 215 110

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2023 in Case R 267/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the registrability of the trade mark at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the registrability of the trade mark at issue;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings born by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings born by the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2023261EN.01001501.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 May 2023 — G GmbH v Hauptzollamt H

(Case C-307/23, G GmbH)

(2023/C 261/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: G GmbH

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Hauptzollamt H

Question referred

Must the cost of production, in the customs territory of the European Union, of printing templates for labels be added to the transaction value under Article 32(1)(a)(ii) or Article 32(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Code (1) if the buyer established in the customs territory of the European Union makes the printing templates available free of charge in electronic form to the suppliers in the third country?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

|  |
|--|

 

| Consent of Independent Registered

Public Accounting Firm

  |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                   |

 

To the Board of Directors of **Compton Petroleum Corporation**

 

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:

| § | our Independent Auditors’ Report dated March 20, 2009 on the consolidated balance sheets of Compton Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”) as at December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the consolidated statements of earnings (loss) and other comprehensive income, retained earnings and cash flow for each of the three years in the period ended                            December 31, 2008; and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| § | our Independent Auditors’ Report dated March 20, 2009 on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2008; |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

each of which is contained in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.

 

| Calgary, Canada |                               |
|-----------------|-------------------------------|
| March 30, 2009  | Chartered Accountants

  |
COOK v. SMITH.

No. 161P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

*739The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of April 2008 by Plaintiff to Proceed as Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of April 2008."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17973]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES-960-1910-BJ-4789] ES-053725, Group No. 35, Missouri


Eastern States: Filing of Plat of Survey

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management.

ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Missouri.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, 
Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in 
the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston 
Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This survey was requested by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers.
    The lands we surveyed are:

Fifth Principal Meridian, Missouri

T. 48 N., Rs. 4 and 5 E.

    The plat of survey represents the survey of a portion of the Lock 
and Dam No. 26 acquisition boundary on an island in the Mississippi 
River in Township 48 North, Range 4 and 5 East, of the Fifth Principal 
Meridian, in the State of Missouri, and was accepted September 2, 2005. 
We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It 
will be made available to the public as a matter of information.

    Dated: September 2, 2005.
Stephen D. Douglas,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 05-17973 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
STREATER v. John N. VAUGHAN.

No. 185P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, John Snyder, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of February 2008 by Plaintiff for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2008."
# C_2023054EN.01002001.xml

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/20

---

Action brought on 20 December 2022 — TV and TW v Council

(Case T-795/22)

(2023/C 54/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: TV and TW (represented by: J. Janssen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | admit and uphold the plea for annulment raised in the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit and uphold the plea for annulment raised in the present application;

| — | annul Article 15 of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (1) (‘contested Regulation’), insofar as it allows the retroactive levy of a solidarity contribution over the year 2022; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 15 of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (1) (‘contested Regulation’), insofar as it allows the retroactive levy of a solidarity contribution over the year 2022; and

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of this procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the contested Regulation constitutes a violation of the right to property as enshrined in Article 1 of First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, as well as the EU principles of legality and legal certainty, insofar the contested Regulation allows for retroactive application.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 261 I, p. 1.

---