alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006281EN.01004402.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/44

---

Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Pantalis v Commission

(Case F-88/06)

(2006/C 281/80)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Pantalis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul that part of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 18 April 2006 which concerns: (a) the Appointing Authority's implied refusal to adapt the applicant's salary in accordance with the Staff Regulations in respect of a dependent child for whom he has alternating custody, (b) the Appointing Authority's refusal to pay the child's travel expenses to the applicant's place of origin, in accordance with the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul that part of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 18 April 2006 which concerns: (a) the Appointing Authority's implied refusal to adapt the applicant's salary in accordance with the Staff Regulations in respect of a dependent child for whom he has alternating custody, (b) the Appointing Authority's refusal to pay the child's travel expenses to the applicant's place of origin, in accordance with the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the retrospective payment of those sums with added interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the retrospective payment of those sums with added interest;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official with alternating custody of a child whose mother is also an official of the European Communities, requested, on his return to Brussels after a period of secondment outside Europe, payment to him of the allowances and advantages relating to the child. The official dealing with the file called for the production of the original of a declaration of agreement between the former spouses on the readjustment of the applicant's rights in the present case. Since that declaration was only produced by email, the authorities did not grant the applicant's requests.

In support of his action, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by case-law. He submits, inter alia, that the authorities' discretion is not unlimited and they have a duty to comply with the principles of sound administration and proportionality. Also, the supporting documents required must be directly linked to the payment requested and they must be referred to by the applicable provisions, or they must be absolutely necessary in order to set the amount to be paid.

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1625-1626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-386]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1936-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]


New Mexico; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-1936-DR), dated September 13, 2010, 
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: January 4, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New Mexico is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of September 13, 2010.

    The Navajo Nation and the Pueblo of Acoma for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;

[[Page 1626]]

97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-386 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RUBEN VALDEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10362

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00287-FJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Ruben Valdez appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 04 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10362

Valdez contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 (Reckless Endangerment During Flight). He

further contends that the court’s findings in support of the enhancement were

insufficient as a procedural matter. The district court’s determination to apply the

enhancement was not clear error, see United States v. Reyes-Oseguera, 106 F.3d

1481, 1483-84 (9th Cir. 1997), and its statements at sentencing were sufficient to

permit meaningful appellate review, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-

93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

AFFIRMED.
1

Filed 8/25/21

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF 

CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VINCE E. LEWIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

S260598

Second Appellate District, Division One

B295998

Los Angeles County Superior Court

TA117431

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

THE COURT:

The opening sentence of the opinion in this matter filed July 26, 

2021, and appearing at 11 Cal.5th 952, is modified to read as follows:

Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015; Senate Bill 1437) 

eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it 

applies to aiding and abetting, and limited the scope of the felony murder 

rule. 

This modification does not affect the judgment. 

The petition for rehearing is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-27-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                             490
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (447)
<INVENTORY>                                     33,296
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,166
<PP&E>                                          17,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,007)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 167,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,395
<BONDS>                                        106,057
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,054
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,069
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   167,589
<SALES>                                         61,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,101
<CGS>                                           29,664
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,122
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   287
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,724
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,304
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,052
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                252
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       252
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 141.59 Customer complaint procedures. ( a ) Any customer of a licensee may file a complaint with the Commissioner alleging that the licensee has committed a violation of this part.
( b ) Upon receipt of a customer complaint the Commissioner shall initiate show cause proceedings under the provisions of § 141.56 of this part.
( c ) If the Commissioner fails to order remedial action within forty (40) days from the date the complaint is filed, the complainant may appeal under the provisions of part 2 of this title not later than seventy (70) days after the date the complaint is filed.
( d ) If the Commissioner orders remedial action, the complainant may appeal under the provisions of part 2 of this title not later than thirty (30) days after the date on which the remedial action is ordered.
### §8865. Sale of prize

(a) The court shall order a sale of prize property if—

(1) the property has been condemned;

(2) the court finds, at any stage of the proceedings, that the property is perishable, liable to deteriorate, or liable to depreciate in value; or

(3) the cost of keeping the property is disproportionate to its value.

(b) The court may order a sale of the prize property if, after the return-day on the libel, all the parties in interest who have appeared in the cause agree to it.

(c) An appeal does not prevent the order of a sale under this section or the execution of such an order.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 479, §7665; renumbered §8865, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(9), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1837.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7665 | 34 U.S.C. 1143. | R.S. 4627. |

In subsection (a) the word "perishing" is omitted as surplusage. The words "in value" are added after "depreciate" for clarity.

In subsection (c) the words "An appeal does not prevent" are substituted for the words "no appeal shall operate to prevent".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7665 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
###### Editorial Note on Part 224

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

#### § 224.134 How often must the Secretary conduct a periodic review and evaluation?

The Secretary must conduct a periodic review and evaluation annually during the first 3 years of a TERA. After the third annual review and evaluation, the Secretary and the Tribe may mutually agree to amend the TERA to conduct periodic reviews and evaluations once every 2 years.
# C_2006268EN.01002601.xml

| 4.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 268/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268/26

---

UK-Cardiff: operation of scheduled air service

Corrigendum to the invitation to tender issued by United Kingdom under Article 4(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 in respect of the operation of a scheduled air service between Cardiff and RAF Valley, Anglesey

(
  ‘Official Journal of the European Union’ C 248 of 14.10.2006
  )

(
  ‘Official Journal of the European Union’ C 248 of 14.10.2006

(

  Supplement to the ‘Official Journal of the European Union’ No S 197 of 14.10.2006
  , open procedure, 208709-2006)

Supplement to the ‘Official Journal of the European Union’

(2006/C 268/16)

Head of Procurement, Procurement Branch 6, RNR Division, Room 2-045, National Assembly for Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NQ, United Kingdom.

for:

9.   Deadline for submission of bids: One month after the date of publication of this notice.

read:

9.   Deadline for submission of bids: Two months after the date of publication of this notice.

---
# C_2014081EN.01000201.xml

| 20.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/2

---

Communication on the publication of the amounts of raw milk production as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)

1

2014/C 81/02

| Amounts of raw milk production (2) as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013
  Annual data (1 000 t) (4) |
| --- |
| | Cow | Ewe | Goat | Buffalo |
| BE | 3 116,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| BG | 1 093,0 | 87,0 | 53,0 | 8,0 |
| CZ | 2 814,7 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| DK | 5 006,4 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| DE | 30 672,2 | 1,9 (3) | 13,0 | 3,9 (3) |
| EE | 720,7 | 0,0 | 0,5 | 0,0 |
| IE | 5 399,3 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| EL | 765,5 | 721,0 | 347,4 | 0,0 |
| ES | 6 502,4 | 571,3 | 464,0 | 0,0 |
| FR | 24 718,3 | 279,3 | 632,1 | 0,0 |
| HR | 659,0 | 5,0 | 12,0 | 0,0 |
| IT | 11 425,8 | 481,0 | 54,5 | 218,4 |
| CY | 153,7 | 25,2 | 26,6 | 0,0 |
| LV | 870,6 | 0,0 | 3,2 | 0,0 |
| LT | 1 774,5 | 0,0 | 3,6 | 0,0 |
| LU | 289,4 | 0,0 | 3,4 | 0,0 |
| HU | 1 812,9 | 1,7 | 3,9 | 0,0 |
| MT | 43,3 (3) | 1,7 (3) | 0,9 (3) | 0,0 |
| NL | 11 881,0 | 3,0 | 217,3 | 1,5 |
| AT | 3 382,1 | 10,6 | 20,3 | 0,0 |
| PL | 12 668,0 | 0,0 | 17,0 | 0,0 |
| PT | 1 938,1 | 74,2 | 31,5 | 0,0 |
| RO | 3 881,0 | 403,0 | 248,0 | 19,0 |
| SI | 620,9 | 0,5 | 1,2 | 0,0 |
| SK | 959,4 | 9,9 | 0,1 | 0,0 |
| FI | 2 296,7 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| SE | 2 861,2 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| UK | 13 857,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 | 0,0 |
| EU-28 | 152 183,1 | 2 676,3 | 2 153,5 | 250,8 |

Amounts of raw milk production (2) as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013

2

Annual data (1 000 t) (4)

4

Cow

Ewe

Goat

Buffalo

BE

BE

3 116,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

BG

BG

1 093,0

87,0

53,0

8,0

CZ

CZ

2 814,7

0,0

0,0

0,0

DK

DK

5 006,4

0,0

0,0

0,0

DE

DE

30 672,2

1,9 (3)

3

13,0

3,9 (3)

3

EE

EE

720,7

0,0

0,5

0,0

IE

IE

5 399,3

0,0

0,0

0,0

EL

EL

765,5

721,0

347,4

0,0

ES

ES

6 502,4

571,3

464,0

0,0

FR

FR

24 718,3

279,3

632,1

0,0

HR

HR

659,0

5,0

12,0

0,0

IT

IT

11 425,8

481,0

54,5

218,4

CY

CY

153,7

25,2

26,6

0,0

LV

LV

870,6

0,0

3,2

0,0

LT

LT

1 774,5

0,0

3,6

0,0

LU

LU

289,4

0,0

3,4

0,0

HU

HU

1 812,9

1,7

3,9

0,0

MT

MT

43,3 (3)

3

1,7 (3)

3

0,9 (3)

3

0,0

NL

NL

11 881,0

3,0

217,3

1,5

AT

AT

3 382,1

10,6

20,3

0,0

PL

PL

12 668,0

0,0

17,0

0,0

PT

PT

1 938,1

74,2

31,5

0,0

RO

RO

3 881,0

403,0

248,0

19,0

SI

SI

620,9

0,5

1,2

0,0

SK

SK

959,4

9,9

0,1

0,0

FI

FI

2 296,7

0,0

0,0

0,0

SE

SE

2 861,2

0,0

0,0

0,0

UK

UK

13 857,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

EU-28

EU-28

152 183,1

2 676,3

2 153,5

250,8

---

(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  2012 Milk production on the farm EUROSTAT — NewCronos Products Obtained.

2

EUROSTAT

NewCronos Products Obtained

(3)  Communicated by the Member State and/or estimated/calculated production.

3

(4)  0,0: zero or less than half the unit.

4

---
### [§130g. Renumbered §394]
IV

House Calendar No. 163

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 386

[Report No. 106–481]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 3194) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part

against revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September

30, 2000, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 18 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 17), 1999

Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 3194) making appropriations

for the government of the District of Columbia and other

activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues

of said District for the fiscal year ending September

30, 2000, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 3194) making appropriations for
2

HRES 386 RH

1 the government of the District of Columbia and other ac2 tivities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of

3 said District for the fiscal year ending September 30,

4 2000, and for other purposes. All points of order against

5 the conference report and against its consideration are

6 waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

7 SEC. 2. Upon adoption of the conference report ad8 dressed in the first section of this resolution, the House

9 shall be considered to have adopted a concurrent resolu10 tion consisting of the text printed in section 3.

11 SEC. 3. The text of the concurrent resolution ad12 dressed in section 2 is as follows:

13 ‘‘Resolved by the House of Representatives (The Senate

14 concurring), That the enrolled copy of the bill (H.R. 2466)

15 making appropriations for the Department of the Interior

16 and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September

17 30, 2000, and for other purposes, shall not be presented

18 to the President, to the end that the bill be, and is hereby,

19 laid on the table.’’.

House Calendar No. 163

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 386

[Report No. 106–481]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3194) making

appropriations for the government of the Districtof Columbia and other activities chargeable inwhole or in part against revenues of said Districtfor the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000,and for other purposes.

NOVEMBER 18 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 17), 1999

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About PBGC 
-  Projections Report 
-  Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS) 
-  How Do PIMS Results Reflect Varying Rates of Return? 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# How Do PIMS Results Reflect Varying Rates of Return?

The rate of return on plan assets is not an input parameter in the Pension Insurance Modeling System (PIMS), but rather depends on assumptions affecting projected interest rates and stock and bond returns and on assumptions about how plans allocate their funds to asset categories. The projected variables that determine asset returns also affect other important outcomes in the models, such as sponsors' bankruptcy risks, inflation and the growth of participants' salaries and benefit levels.

One way to look at the sensitivities of projected outcomes to plan returns, while capturing all the associated effects of related variables, is to look at how the outcomes vary with the randomly simulated rates of return that are projected with the current model.

PIMS simulates 500 economic scenarios, with each scenario having a different path of plan returns. To produce the chart below, we calculated the 10-year geometric mean of plan returns for each scenario and rounded to the nearest percentage point. For each value of rounded plan returns, the chart below shows the mean projected single-employer (SE) values, from the matching scenarios, of the present value of PBGC's 2023 SE Financial Position and the present value of SE claims over 2014-23.

The following charts show: 1) the same values as above, but for projected multiemployer (ME) outcomes, and 2) the relationship between projected plan returns and the probability of the ME program's insolvency in 2023.

The final chart shows the frequency distribution for the different levels of plan returns across the 500 economic scenarios (the SE and ME models use the same plan return projections).

April 27, 2017
§ 309.24 How will statements about Indian origin of art or craft products be interpreted? ( a ) *In general.* The unqualified use of the term “Indian” or of the term “Native American” or the unqualified use of the name of an Indian tribe, in connection with an art or craft product, is interpreted to mean for purposes of this part that— ( 1 ) The maker is a member of an Indian tribe, is certified by an Indian tribe as a non-member Indian artisan, or is a member of the particular Indian tribe named; and
( 2 ) The art or craft product is an Indian product.
( b ) *Products of Indians of foreign tribes* — ( 1 ) *In general.* The unqualified use of the term “Indian” or of the term “Native American” or the unqualified use of the name of a foreign tribe, in connection with an art or craft product, regardless of where it is produced and regardless of any country-of-origin marking on the product, is interpreted to mean for purposes of this part that— ( i ) The maker is a member of an Indian tribe, is certified by an Indian tribe as a non-member Indian artisan, or is a member of the particular Indian tribe named;
( ii ) The tribe is resident in the United States; and
( iii ) The art or craft product is an Indian product.
( 2 ) *Exception where country of origin is disclosed.* Paragraph (b) of this section does not apply to any art or craft for which the name of the foreign country of tribal ancestry is clearly disclosed in conjunction with marketing of the product.
Example. X is a lineal descendant of a member of Indian Tribe A. However, X is not a member of Indian Tribe A, nor is X certified by Indian Tribe A as a non-member Indian artisan. X may not be described in connection with the marketing of an art or craft product made by X as an Indian, a Native American, a member of an Indian tribe, a member of Tribe A, or as a non-member Indian artisan of an Indian tribe. However, the true statement may be used that X is of Indian descent, Native American descent, or Tribe A descent.
[61 FR 54555, Oct. 21, 1996; 61 FR 57002, Nov. 5, 1996. Redesignated at 68 FR 35170, June 12, 2003]