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 State

          - [Public Notice 5166] 

The Department of State's Shipping Coordinating Committee; Subcommittee on Ocean Dumping will hold an open meeting on Wednesday, October 19, 2005, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. to obtain public comment on the issues to be addressed at the October 24-28, 2005, Twenty-seventh Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Convention. The London Convention of 1972 is the global international treaty regulating ocean dumping. The meeting will also review the results of the Twenty-eighth Scientific Group Meeting of the London Convention that was held in London, United Kingdom from May 23-27, 2005. 

In addition, participants at this meeting will discuss plans for ratification, by the United States, of the 1996 London Protocol. The Protocol is a treaty signed by the United States in 1998 that is separate from the London Convention. It sets forth a regime that is more comprehensive, more stringent, and more protective of the marine environment than the London Convention. 

The public meeting will be held at the Department of State located at 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520 in Room 7835. Interested members of the public are invited to attend, up to the capacity of the room. 

                    For further information and pre-clearance into the Department of State, please contact: Anne Chick, Office of Ocean Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Room 5805, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520, telephone (202) 647-3879, or email                     *chickal@state.gov*                     by Monday, October 17, 2005.                 

Dated: September 15, 2005. 

Clayton Diamond, 

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 05-18849 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
**Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2007 – Torres v OHIM**

**(Case C‐405/06 P)**

Appeal – Community trade mark – Application for the figurative mark ‘Torre Muga’ – Opposition proceedings – Earlier international and national word mark ‘TORRES’ – Likelihood of confusion – Opposition rejected

1.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 32)*

2.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense
of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, para. 1) (see para. 34)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2006 in Case T-247/03 | Torres | v | OHIM and Bodegas Muga | , by which the Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 April 2003 (Case R 998/2001-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres SA and Bodegas Muga SA. |

**Operative part:**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | The appeal is dismissed; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Miguel Torres SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3919 

To redesignate Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia as Rock Creek 

National Park in the District of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2014 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To redesignate Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia 

as Rock Creek National Park in the District of Columbia. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rock Creek National 

5 Park in the District of Columbia Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF ROCK CREEK PARK AS ROCK 

7 CREEK NATIONAL PARK IN THE DISTRICT OF 

8 COLUMBIA. 

9 (a) REDESIGNATION.—In recognition of its nationally 

10 significant natural, cultural, and historical resources, and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3919 IH

1 important recreational opportunities, Rock Creek Park in 

2 the District of Columbia, established by the Act of Sep3 tember 27, 1890 (26 Stat. 492), is redesignated as Rock 

4 Creek National Park in the District of Columbia. 

5 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, map, 

6 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

7 States to ‘‘Rock Creek Park’’ in the District of Columbia 

8 shall be considered to be a reference to ‘‘Rock Creek Na9 tional Park in the District of Columbia’’. 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Richard STOGSDILL, Petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002513. No. 2014-002513.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 24, 2016.

**568ORDER

After granting a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the South Carolina Court *670of Appeals in this case, this Court issued an opinion on January 20, 2016, dismissing the writ as improvidently granted. That same day, the remittitur was sent to the Administrative Law Court.

Petitioner has now filed a motion requesting that this Court vacate its opinion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3), SCRCP, and seeking leave to supplement the record in this matter pursuant to Rule 212(b), SCACR. Alternatively, Petitioner seeks a rehearing pursuant to Rule 221(a), SCACR.

Initially, to the extent Petitioner petitions the Court to vacate its opinion under Rule 60, SCRCP, we remind Petitioner that the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure are inapplicable in appellate proceedings. *See* Rule 73, SCRCP ("Procedure on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court or the South Carolina Court of Appeals shall be in accordance with the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules."); Rule 81, SCRCP (providing the SCRCP "shall apply to every *trial court* of civil jurisdiction within this state" (emphasis added)).

To the extent Petitioner's motion seeks a rehearing of this Court's decision, such a request is improper because petitions **569for rehearing are not entertained following this Court's dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. *See* Rule 221(a), SCACR ("No petition for rehearing shall be allowed from an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari...."); *Hollins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,* 392 S.C. 313, 313, 709 S.E.2d 625, 626 (2011) (finding that, for purposes of Rule 221(a), SCACR, a dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted is equivalent to the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari since both dispositions indicate this Court has determined there is no need to discuss or further review the merits of the case).

Further, since the opinion of this Court was not subject to any petition for rehearing, the remittitur was properly sent when the opinion was filed. The sending of the remittitur ended appellate jurisdiction over this case, and no further motions will be entertained after the remittitur is sent. *Wise v. S.C. Dep't of Corr.,* 372 S.C. 173, 174, 642 S.E.2d 551, 551 (2007).

Therefore, Petitioner's motion is hereby stricken and dismissed.

*s/Costa M. Pleicones* , C.J.

*s/Donald W. Beatty* , J.

*s/John W. Kittredge* , J.

*s/Kaye G. Hearn* , J.

MOORE, A.J., not participating.
# C_2010301EN.01002802.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/28

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2010 — Portuguese Republic v Transnáutica and Commission

(Case T-385/05 TO) (1)

1

(Third-party proceedings - Opportunity for the third party to take part in the original case - No prejudicial effects on the rights of the third party - Inadmissibility)

2010/C 301/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Third Party: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, A.C. Santos, J. Gomes and P. Rocha, Agents)

Third Party:

Other parties to proceedings: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA, (Matosinhos, Portugal) (represented by C. Fernández Vicién, D. Ortigão Ramos, P. Carmona Botana, M.T. López Garrido and P. Vidal Matos, lawyers); and European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Bouyon, lawyers)

Other parties to proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Application initiating third-party proceedings to contest the judgment of 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica v Commission, not published in the ECR

Transnáutica

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application initiating third-party proceedings is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application initiating third-party proceedings is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA, including those relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.

1

---
# C_2008327EN.01002402.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/24

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2008 — Powderject Research v OHIM (POWDERMED)

(Case T-166/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark POWDERMED - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 327/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Powderject Research Ltd (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister, and P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 April 2006 (Case R 1189/2005-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign POWDERMED as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Powderject Research Ltd shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Powderject Research Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 99.30
 CONSENT OF J. LUPO
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 31, 2006 entitled Technical Report
NI 43-101F1 Los Filos Project, Mexico (the Los Filos Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection
with information relating to the Los Filos Report and the Los Filos
Mine, and the properties described therein.
  /s/ John F. LupoName:
    John F. Lupo, Ph.D., P.E.
Tervin Goodman, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 30, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on May 23, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable William H. Seals, Jr. be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Seals shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Seals shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
Exhibit 32
 
 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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Patent Development Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:
 
 (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.
 
 /s/ HARVEY P. EISENName:
Harvey P. EisenTitle:
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)Date:
November 15, 2010
 
 /s/ IRA J. SOBOTKOName:
Ira J. SobotkoTitle:
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)Date:
November 15, 2010
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May

21 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00379- CV

IN RE YOUSEF ELDIRAO UI , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 17- DCV -247500



### MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 9, 2019, relator Yousef Eldiraoui filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Frank J. Frayley , presiding judge of the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County , to vacate2

his March 5, 2019 order on Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, in which the judge overruled all of relator’s objections to the discovery requests at issue. Relator also filed a motion asking our court to stay all proceedings in the trial court pending this court’s decision on his petiti on for mandamus relief

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. With certain exceptions not applicable in this proceeding, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal . In re Prudential
Ins. Co

. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief

. We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Spain and Poissant.
Exhibit 32.0
 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 report of Universal Biosensors, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of such officers knowledge:
 (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. The undersigned have
executed this Certificate as of the 13th day of
May 2010.
 /s/ Mark MorrissonMark MorrissonChief Executive Officer and Executive
Director/s/ Salesh BalakSalesh BalakChief Financial Officer 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b)
under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability
of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent such
certification is explicitly incorporated by reference in such filing.
Exhibit
4.1







THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


July 17, 2014


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Zacks Diversified Equity &
Corporate Bond Trust, Series 6


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Zacks Diversified Equity & Corporate Bond Trust, Series 6 set forth above (the
“Trust”). We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated
therein reflect our evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on July 17, 2014, in accordance with the valuation method
set forth in the Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-196475) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO_______________ 


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-96024) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1994
Formula Stock Option Plan and the 1995 Stock Option Plan of Video Update, Inc.
of our report dated August 13, 1998, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Video Update, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended April 30, 1998.
 
                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
 
Minneapolis, Minnesota August 13, 1998
# C_2008260EN.01002001.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/20

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2008 — Agim Islamaj v Commission

(Case F-84/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Former members of the temporary staff paid from research appropriations - Promotion - Cancellation of points from the ‘rucksack’ - Transfer of an official from the research part to the administration part of the general budget)

(2008/C 260/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Agim Islamaj (Grimbergen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Lozano Palacios, then by C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision to cancel the 38,5 points from the applicant's ‘rucksack’ which he accumulated as a member of the temporary staff — Application for a declaration that Article 2 of the Commission Decision on detailed rules governing the promotion procedure for officials paid from research appropriations in the general budget is unlawful.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Islamaj to bear two thirds of his own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Islamaj to bear two thirds of his own costs;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay, in addition to its own costs, one third of Mr Islamaj's costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay, in addition to its own costs, one third of Mr Islamaj's costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007, p. 33.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 19, 2022 No. 04-22-00195-CV Glenn A. ROUSCH , Appellant

v. Robert TAYLOR , Appellee From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CV03286 Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant’s brief was originally due July 11, 2022. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed. We order appellant to file, on or before July 29, 2022 , his appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining (1) his failure to timely file the brief and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. If appellant fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, his appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a); see also T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant has failed to comply with a court order).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 19th day of July, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court