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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

North Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee, Kamiah, Idaho, USDA, Forest Service.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests' North Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will meet Friday, September 30, 2005 in Potlatch, Idaho for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The business meeting on September 30, at the Potlatch Ranger Station, 1700 Highway 6, Potlatch, Idaho, beginning at 10 a.m. (PST). agenda topics will include discussion of potential projects. A public forum will begin at 2:30 p.m. (PST).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ihor Mereszczak, Staff Officer and Designated Federal Officer, at (208) 935-2513.

      ( print page 53620)    
Dated: September 1, 2005.

Ihor Mereszczak,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 05-17904 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
---

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 Active Power, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John K. Penver, Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date: March 1, 2011




/S/     JOHN K. PENVERJohn K. Penver

Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 54 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 54

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
  of services provided by nursing school clinics under State medicaid 
                               programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

Mr. Reid (for Mr. Inouye) introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
  of services provided by nursing school clinics under State medicaid 
                               programs.

    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 ``Nursing School Clinics Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY NURSING SCHOOL 
              CLINICS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (27), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (28) as paragraph (29); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (27), the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(28) nursing school clinic services (as defined in 
        subsection (y)) furnished by or under the supervision of a 
        nurse practitioner or a clinical nurse specialist (as defined 
        in section 1861(aa)(5)), whether or not the nurse practitioner 
        or clinical nurse specialist is under the supervision of, or 
        associated with, a physician or other health care provider; 
        and''.
    (b) Nursing School Clinic Services Defined.--Section 1905 of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(y) The term `nursing school clinic services' means services 
provided by a health care facility operated by an accredited school of 
nursing which provides primary care, long-term care, mental health 
counseling, home health counseling, home health care, or other health 
care services which are within the scope of practice of a registered 
nurse.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(a)(10)(C)(iv) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(C)(iv)) is amended by inserting 
``and (28)'' after ``(24)''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall be 
effective with respect to payments made under a State plan under title 
XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) for calendar 
quarters commencing with the first calendar quarter beginning after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40249

Summary Calendar

 

SAN JUANITA BUSTOS GARZA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LARRY G. SPENCE, in his official capacity as Sheriff of 

Willacy County, Texas, and County of Willacy; COUNTY OF WILLACY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-98-CV-184

- - - - - - - - - -

December 13, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

San Juanita Bustos Garza appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment for defendants Larry Spence and County of Willacy

dismissing her civil rights lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo, applying the same standard as would the district

court. See Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., 114

F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997).
2

Garza failed to create an issue of fact that Spence, in his

individual capacity, was personally involved in the alleged

constitutional violation or that there was a sufficient causal

connection between Spence’s alleged wrongful conduct and the

alleged constitutional violation. Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298,

303 (5th Cir. 1987). Her official-capacity claim against Spence is

really a claim against the County of Willacy and was therefore

properly dismissed as duplicative. See Bennett v. Pippin, 74 F.3d

578, 584 (5th Cir. 1996); Sims v. Jefferson Downs Racing Ass’n, 778

F.2d 1068, 1081 (5th Cir. 1985). She also failed to create an

issue of material fact that would impose liability upon the County

of Willacy. See Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,

694-95 (1978); Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762, 767-69

(5th Cir. 1984)(en banc).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 638/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 638/2014 of 13 June 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 638/2014                     

# of 13 June 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 June 2014.

*For the Commission*,                           

*On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE v. Hermenegildo R. MARTINEZ.

No. 94P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of March 2008 by Defendant for a Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2008."
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael W. Nall,
hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Biocept, Inc. for the fiscal year period ended
December 31, 2013 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Biocept, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                    
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  |  |                                                                    
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 28, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael W. Nall                                                
|                     |  |  |  | Michael W. Nall                                                    
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, )

)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION )

 FOUNDATION, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 08-00437 (RCL)

)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, )

)

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants’ Motion [21] for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 

Judgment is hereby entered dismissing this case with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, on October 16, 2009.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,141
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      186
<ALLOWANCES>                                        40
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,323
<PP&E>                                              37
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              102
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,506
<SALES>                                            774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   871
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (708)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (708)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (708)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
                   Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Western Wireless Corporation, a Washington corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended
      September 30, 2004 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

Dated: November 15, 2004

                                    By: /s/ JOHN W. STANTON
                                        ---------------------------
                                         John W. Stanton
                                         Chairman of the Board and
                                         Chief Executive Officer

      The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).
# C_2023252EN.01006501.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/65

---

Action brought on 19 May 2023 — Impossible Foods v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (IMPOSSIBLE)

(Case T-273/23)

(2023/C 252/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Impossible Foods Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States) (represented by: T. Cohen Jehoram, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark IMPOSSIBLE — European Union trade mark No 12 775 664

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2023 in Case R 665/2022-5

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 of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2023121EN.01001301.xml

| 3.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/13

---

Action brought on 15 February 2023 — DDP Specialty Electronics Materials US 8 v EUIPO — Taniobis (AMBERTEC)

(Case T-76/23)

(2023/C 121/17)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: DDP Specialty Electronics Materials US 8 llc (Collegeville, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: G. Gibbons, SC, R. Minch and A. Bateman, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Taniobis GmbH (Goslar, 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 AMBERTEC — Application for registration No 18 104 742

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2022 in Case R 1988/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and/or the intervener (if appropriate) to pay the applicant’s costs including the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and/or the intervener (if appropriate) to pay the applicant’s costs including the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights including the principle of equality of arms, the right to a fair trial and the applicant’s defence rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights including the principle of equality of arms, the right to a fair trial and the applicant’s defence rights;

| — | 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.

---
<PAGE>
                                                          EXHIBIT 23

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Solutia's
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-34561, 333-34587,
333-34589, 333-34591, 333-34593, 333-34683, 333-35689, 333-47911,
333-51081, 333-74463, and 333-74465) of our opinions dated February
23, 2000 (which includes an explanatory paragraph as to a change in
the method of accounting in 1997), appearing in and incorporated by
reference in this annual report on Form 10-K of Solutia Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Saint Louis, Missouri
March 9, 2000

                                 23
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 395 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 395

   To require States and Indian tribes to designate specific highway 
       routes over which hazardous materials may be transported.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 25, 2007

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require States and Indian tribes to designate specific highway 
       routes over which hazardous materials may be transported.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ROUTES.

    Section 5112(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``subsection (d) of this section'' and 
        inserting ``subsection (f)'';
            (2) by striking ``of this title'' and inserting ``, and in 
        accordance with the standards prescribed under subsection 
        (b),''; and
            (3) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Wade Leon SHAW.

No. 22P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2015.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Wade Leon Shaw, for Shaw, Wade Leon.

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th of January 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> *66"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of June 2015."