alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006294EN.01001502.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/15

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-232/05) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid granted to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark - Obligation of recovery - Non-execution owing to the application of a national procedure - National procedural autonomy - Limits - ‘National procedure allowing immediate and effective execution’ for the purposes of Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - National procedure providing that actions brought against demands for payment issued by national authorities have suspensory effect)

(2006/C 294/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to execute within the prescribed period Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 9.07.2005.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 564 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 267
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 564

                          [Report No. 106-795]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4865) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 income tax increase on 
                       Social Security benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 2000

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4865) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 income tax increase on 
                       Social Security benefits.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4865) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 income tax increase on 
Social Security benefits. The bill shall be considered as read for 
amendment. All points of order against the bill and against its 
consideration are waived. The amendment recommended by the Committee on 
Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further 
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution, if offered by Representative Pomeroy of North Dakota 
or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.

                                                 House Calendar No. 267

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 564

                          [Report No. 106-795]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4865) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 income tax increase on 
                       Social Security benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 26, 2000

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### § 39.121 What is the WSU for gifted and talented students?

The WSU for a gifted and talented student is the base academic weight (see § 39.103) subtracted from 2.0. The following table shows the gifted and talented weights obtained using this procedure.

| Grade level | Gifted and talented WSU |
| --- | --- |
| Kindergarten | 0.85 |
| Grades 1 to 3 | 0.62 |
| Grades 4 to 6 | 0.85 |
| Grades 7 to 8 | 0.62 |
| Grades 9 to 12 | 0.50 |
#### In the Matter of Bernabe Encarnacion, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 492]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O’Brien, III, J.), entered December 29, 2005 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a verbal exchange with a correction officer, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with harassment, interfering with an employee and making threats. Later that same day, he was charged in a second misbehavior report with possessing an altered item as well as unauthorized quantities of medication after a plastic glove finger containing prescription drugs was found in his pillowcase. Petitioner was removed from the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing because he persisted in requesting a Spanish-speaking interpreter when, in fact, he was proficient in English. At the conclusion of the hearing, he was found guilty of all of the charges and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. In the order to show cause signed by Supreme Court, the court dismissed petitioner’s claim that he was improperly denied a Spanish-speaking interpreter and imposed sanctions of $250 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (1). The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no merit to petitioner’s claim of retaliation. Petitioner appeals.

*1176We affirm. Preliminarily, we note that petitioner’s claim that he was improperly denied a Spanish-speaking interpreter has repeatedly been rejected by this Court in a number of other appeals and he has been found to be proficient in English *(see Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*28 AD3d 848 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 712 [2006]; *Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*20 AD3d 787 [2005]; *Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*19 AD3d 906, 907 [2005]; *Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*17 AD3d 749 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 705 [2005]). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly concluded that this claim was wholly frivolous and it was justified in imposing sanctions *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]). The misbehavior reports, together with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared them, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Carrington v Goord,*20 AD3d 835, 835 [2005]). There is nothing in the record to substantiate petitioner’s claim of retaliation which, in any event, presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Pulliam v Whitmore,*24 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

74-22

November 7, 1974 

 STATUTE/REGULATION SECTION:

4021(b) (3) Plans Covered. 

OPINION:

In your letter of October 14, 1974, you asked whether certain plans covering the lay employees of church related

schools and hospitals belonged to a "church plan." 

Your question is in the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service. As you know, the definition of a church plan is

provided in section 414 (e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and regulations have not yet been issued under

this section. Thus, I advise you to seek a ruling request from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with respect to

the plans mentioned in your letter. 

I am sorry that we are not able to provide more information with respect to the questions raised in your letter. 

 

 Charles Skopic 

Acting Executive Director
§ 162.017 What taxes apply to leases approved under this part? ( a ) Subject only to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on the leased land, without regard to ownership of those improvements, are not subject to any fee, tax, assessment, levy, or other charge imposed by any State or political subdivision of a State. Improvements may be subject to taxation by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.
( b ) Subject only to applicable Federal law, activities under a lease conducted on the leased premises are not subject to any fee, tax, assessment, levy, or other charge (e.g., business use, privilege, public utility, excise, gross revenue taxes) imposed by any State or political subdivision of a State. Activities may be subject to taxation by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.
( c ) Subject only to applicable Federal law, the leasehold or possessory interest is not subject to any fee, tax, assessment, levy, or other charge imposed by any State or political subdivision of a State. Leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.124 May the Indian tribe or tribal organization elect to use a grant in lieu of a contract?

Yes. A grant agreement or a cooperative agreement may be used in lieu of a contract under sections 102 and 103 of the Act when agreed to by the Secretary and the Indian tribe or tribal organization. Under the grant concept, the grantee will assume full responsibility and accountability for design and construction performance within the funding limitations. The grantee will manage and administer the work with minimal involvement by the government. The grantee will be expected to have acceptable management systems for finance, procurement, and property. The Secretary may issue Federal construction guidelines and manuals applicable to its construction programs, and the government shall accept tribal proposals for alternatives which are consistent with or exceed Federal guidelines or manuals applicable to construction programs.
### §1185. Removal of debtor in possession

(a) In General.—On request of a party in interest, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall order that the debtor shall not be a debtor in possession for cause, including fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor, either before or after the date of commencement of the case, or for failure to perform the obligations of the debtor under a plan confirmed under this subchapter.

(b) Reinstatement.—On request of a party in interest, and after notice and a hearing, the court may reinstate the debtor in possession.

(Added Pub. L. 116–54, §2(a), Aug. 23, 2019, 133 Stat. 1080.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Aug. 23, 2019, see section 5 of Pub. L. 116–54, set out as an Effective Date of 2019 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.
# C_2006261EN.01000201.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Organon Portuguesa — Produtos Químicos e Farmacêuticos Lda

(Case C-193/04) (1)

1

(Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Directive 69/335/EEC - Disposal of shares of a limited company)

(2006/C 261/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Fazenda Pública

Appellant:

Respondent: Organon Portuguesa — Produtos Químicos e Farmacêuticos Lda

Respondent:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Articles 4(3), 10(c) and 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition, 1969(II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Compatibility with those provisions of fees payable for the drawing-up of a notarially attested share transfer

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not preclude national legislation which provides, in respect of the drawing-up of a notarial act recording a disposal of shares which is not linked to an increase in capital, for the charging of fees which are fixed by reference to a flat rate and/or the value of the shares being disposed of.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 12.6.2004.

1

---
H. Res. 73

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 23, 1999.

Resolved, That Mr. Portman shall rank immediately following Mr. Camp on the Committee on Standards of Official

Conduct.

Attest:

Clerk.
# VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE

NOT TRANSFERABLE

This Verification Certificate is hereby iss ued to the named GRANTEE and is VALID ONLY for the equipment identified hereon for use under the rules and regulations listed below:

GRANTEE: AirSep Corporation Address: 401 Creekside Drive, Buffalo, New York USA, 14228 Contact Person: Mr. Mike Chimiak Phone #: 716-691-0202 x243 Fax #: 716-564-3736 Email Address: mike. chimiak@airsep.com
Equipment Type: Category M - Airborne Equipment Product: Focus Unit

, (Model: AS078, P/N: AS078-1-2-3-4) with
a. Battery Pack (14.8Vdc Li-Ion) (Model: BTO23-1; S/N: G3000230: P/N:BT023-1)
b. AirBelt Battery (Ultralife 14.6Vdc Li-Ion) (Model: BT017-X; S/N: F5116013; P/N:BT017-1-2-3-4)
c. AirBelt Battery (International Components Corporation 14.8Vdc Li-Ion) (Model: BT017-X; P/N:BT017-1-2-3-4)
d. Elpac Power Systems AC/DC Power Supply (Model: 4249; P/N:PW019-1) The above product was tested by UltraTech Engineering Labs Inc. and found to comply with: Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, RTCA/DO-160F, Section 21: Emission and Radio Frequency Energy

Note(s) : See report, UltraTech's File No.: AIR 100-RTCA-DO160F, dated March 4, 2011 for det ails and conditions of Verification Compliance.

Approved by: Tri M. Luu, BASc., V.P. – Engineering 

# UltraTech

3000 Bristol Circle, Oakville, Ontario, Canada, L6H 6G4 Tel.: (905) 829-1570 Fax.: (905) 829-8050 www.ultratech-labs.com Email: vic@ultratech-labs.com , Email: tri@ultratech-labs.com 

# FCC

Korea KCC-RRL

91038 1309 46390-2049 NVLAP Lab Code 200093-0 SL2-IN-E-1119R CA2049
^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

Sitka

Haines

Juneau

Hoonah

Angoon

Skagway

Pelican

Elfin Cove

Port

Alexander

Tenakee Springs

04-03

01-03

04-12

01-05B

01-01

04-13

01-05F

04-02B

01-05C

01-05D

04-11A

04-11B

04-10B

01-04C

01-04A

04-08

04-06B

04-01B

04-04B

04-14

04-05A

04-01A

04-07A

01-04B

04-15D

04-09A

04-16D

04-15B 04-15A

04-02D

04-07B

04-04A

04-02C

04-06A

04-09B

04-01C

04-16C

04-02A

01-02

01-05A

04-15C

01-05E

04-10A

04-16B

04-16E

04-16A

01-04D

04-04C

Lynn

Canal

Icy

Strait

Stephens

Pa

ss

a

ge

C

h

ath

am

Strait

Frederick Sound

Figure 1: Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide Project Area

Project Location

Alaska

®

^ Town

Use Area

Wilderness

National Forest Land

Shoreline II Project Area

Non-National Forest Land

0 5 10 20 30 40

Miles
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40612 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EDWARDO PERALA-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-03-CR-27-1

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Edwardo Perala-Salazar appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Perala-Salazar complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Perala-Salazar thus contends that his sentenceNo. 03-40612 -2- should not exceed the maximum terms of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Perala-Salazar acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Next 60 Days

Key Events

FEbruary 2024 March 2024 tRANSITION

RESIDUAL FUEL tracker 

GALLONS rEMOVED 

*AMOUNT IS APPROXIMATE

CRI: Community Representation Initiative

DLNR: Department of Land and Natural Resources 

DISF: Defueling Information Sharing Forum

NB: NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD

Joint Task Force – Red Hill

RESIDUAL FUEL TRACKER

As of February 12, 2024 

Subject to Revision

Dashboard Legend

March:

7 MAR - FUEL TANK ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

19 MAR - DLNR COMMISSION ON WATER 

 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEETING

21 MAR - (Tentative) CRI MEETING

28 MAR - jtf-rh stands down 

February:

2 feb - governor’s water committee

8 FEB - Rh Remediation RoundTable

8 Feb - Salt lake NB AND ewa beach NB

13 Feb - Aiea NB

15 FEB - CRI meeting

20 feb - nanakuli nB

22 feb - DISF meeting 

26 feb - wahiawa NB

27 feb - pearl city NB

removal of residual fuel

click on thumbnail to view video

2 9 2 7 3

JTF-RH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING approximately 60,000 gallons of residual fuel

Visit the Navy Closure Task Force-Red Hill

Website by Scanning or clicking

the QR code below
### Stratigraphy and origin of the Triassic Moenkopi Formation and related strata in the Colorado Plateau region, with a section on sedimentary petrology

By: John H. StewartF. G. Poole**R. F. WilsonR. A. Cadigan

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp691

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.