alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006326EN.01002502.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 October 2006 — Winner Wetten GmbH v Mayor of Bergheim

(Case C-409/06)

(2006/C 326/50)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Winner Wetten GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Mayor of Bergheim

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that national rules governing a State monopoly on sports betting, which contain impermissible restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC, inasmuch as they do not serve to limit betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner within the terms of the Court's case-law (judgment in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR-13031), may still continue to apply for a transitional period on an exceptional basis, notwithstanding the primacy of directly applicable Community law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that national rules governing a State monopoly on sports betting, which contain impermissible restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC, inasmuch as they do not serve to limit betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner within the terms of the Court's case-law (judgment in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR-13031), may still continue to apply for a transitional period on an exceptional basis, notwithstanding the primacy of directly applicable Community law?

Gambelli and Others

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: what conditions need to be met for the purpose of derogating from that primacy and how is the transitional period to be determined? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: what conditions need to be met for the purpose of derogating from that primacy and how is the transitional period to be determined?

---
### subpart 3—enforcement
§ 700.303 Initial Commission determinations. ( a ) Initial Commission Determination concerning individual eligibility or benefits for any person who has filed a claim for benefits or for granting of life estate leases shall be made by the Certifying Officer. The Determination shall include the amount, if any, to which the individual is entitled, and shall state the reasons therefor. Such Determination shall be communicated to the Applicant by certified letter or in person by Commission staff. A record of personal notice shall be maintained by the Commission.
( b ) An explanatory conference shall be scheduled by and with the Certifying Officer, if requested by the Applicant or the Certifying Officer, within thirty days of the communication of the Determination; the right to a hearing is not dependent on the holding of such a conference. The Certifying Officer may reverse, amend, or leave standing the Initial Determination as a result of such conference: *Provided, however,* his/her decision shall be communicated in writing to the Applicant by certified letter or in person by Commission staff within five days after such conference.
( c ) Communications of Determinations to the Applicant as provided for in § 700.303(a) shall include an explanation of the availability of grievance procedures, including hearings and representation of counsel and the fact that a hearing must be requested within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of the determination.
( d ) No decision which at the time of its rendition is subject to appeal to the Commission shall be considered final agency action subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 704, *Provided* that in the event of a whole or partial denial, no benefits shall be paid unless and until said Determination is reversed or modified as provided for herein.
## CI t y of \ \ f 

### r.


# ~ 0 "ti

. CITY 10 FIRST ST
. 

### NW MASON 

### CITY, 

### IA 50401 (641)421-3600/ FAX 

### (641)423-5369

WWW.MASONCITY.NET



### Eric Bookmeyer , Mayor July 2, 2014 Mr. Ke v in Schl e mmer Chief, Essential Air Service Division U.S
. Department of Transportation 

## Offi c e of the Se c retary of Tr s ncportstion 1200 New Jersey Av e nue , S E Wa s hin gto n , D. C
. 20 5 90 Sent ele c tron i call y via e-mail



### RE: R e qu es t Orde rin g R e solicitin g Ess e ntial Air Se rvi c e Proposals Served Apri l 22, 

### 2014 D o cke t Nu m be r: O S T-2001-1 0 684; Ma s on Ci ty Dear Mr. Schlemmer : The Ma s on City Airport Commi s sion met on June 

### 30 , 201 4 and unanimou s ly voted to accept th e Request for Proposal submitted by Air Choice On e to s erve the Ma s on City Municipal Airp o rt for the ne x t tw o- ye ar peri od w ith 24 ro und tri ps per w eek to Chicago O ' Hare Internati o nal Ai rpo rt . . 

# .. . While Ma s on City and F o rt Dodge attempted to attract a m ainline carrier to serv e both o ur c ommunities w i th the pre se nt airl i ne en v iro nment this e f f o rt was n ot suc cess ful at this ti me. 

### I understand the US DOT requires that our community receive s twin en g ine service ; ho we ver , the Commi ss i o n i s supporti ng the proposal submitte d b y Air Ch o ice One wi th the s ingl e en g ine airc r aft due to the limited choices of the proposals s ubmitted. We are al so aware that th e pro p os al submi tted b y A i r Ch o ice One e x ce e ds the $2 00 per p ass e nger c ap , however it is our exp e ctation s for the communi ty to support the i r service which will lower the per p ass en g er cap requirement within the E A S Pro g ram at the present ti me . We 

### w ill re s pectfully await the EAS Department of Transport ati o n ' s decision re g arding our re qu e st. S i ncere l y, 

## . . » : / 

# / ~ ~ E~ e ~- ~-- -- Mayor of Ma s on City
#### § 39.720 Why are there different reporting requirements for transportation data?

In order to construct an actual cost data base, residential and day schools must report data required by §§ 39.721 and 39.722.
10.4 

 11/08/04 

Page 1 

Quitting Tobacco: Handling Anxiety ... Without Smoking 

What To Expect 

• You may feel quite tense and agitated within 24 hours of quitting. 

• You may feel a tightness in your muscles—especially around the neck and shoulders. 

• These feelings will pass with time. 

Did You Know? 

• Recent studies have found that most quitters report feelings of increased anxiety within a 

week of quitting. 

• If anxiety occurs, it will usually begin within the first day, peak in the first couple of 

weeks, and disappear within a month. 

What To Do 

• Take a walk. 

• Take a hot bath. 

• Try a massage. 

• Try to take a few minutes out of your day to meditate, or do stretching exercises. 

• Set aside some quiet time every morning and evening—a time when you can be alone in 

a quiet environment. 

Nicotine and Your Mind and Body 

• Anxiety is usually measured as an increase in muscle tension as well as an increased 

sensitivity to muscle tension. Laboratory research shows that the anxiety produced from 

quitting tobacco may be due to temporary changes in your brain chemistry. There is 

some evidence that tobacco use reduces anxiety, so some of the anxiety you feel when 

you quit is actually what nonsmokers normally experience. 

• Most of the anxiety you feel immediately after you quit is due to temporary changes.

Related Notes 

• Nicotine replacement products deliver small, steady doses of nicotine into the body, and 

the nicotine helps to relieve the withdrawal symptoms often felt by people trying to quit 

smoking. Nicotine replacement patches, gum, lozenges, nasal spray, and inhaler appear 

to be equally effective. Buproprion pills (which don’t contain nicotine) also help relieve 

withdrawal symptoms. 
10.4 

 11/08/04 

Page 2 

How To Get Help 

• If you or someone you know wants help with giving up tobacco, please call the National 

Cancer Institute’s Smoking Quitline toll-free at 1–877–44U–QUIT (1–877–448–7848). 

The information specialists on the Quitline can provide suggestions and support to help 

smokers break the habit. 

• The Federal Government’s Smokefree.gov Web site (http://www.smokefree.gov) allows 

you to choose the help that best fits your needs. You can get immediate assistance: 

o View an online step-by-step cessation guide. 

o Find state quitline telephone numbers. 

o Instant message an expert through NCI’s LiveHelp service. 

o Download, print, or order publications about quitting smoking.

# # # 

This fact sheet was reviewed on 11/08/04

This fact sheet was adapted from material developed by the Tobacco Education and Prevention Program of the 

Arizona Department of Health Services and the Arizona Smokers’ Helpline of the University of Arizona.
Opinion issued July 1, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00340
- CR

——————————— DARRELL FRANKLIN CLA Y, JR. , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1341793

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Darrell Franklin Clay, Jr., pleaded guilty to the felony offense of aggravated assault. 1 The trial court found appellant guilty and, i n accordance with
the terms of a

ppellant’s plea bargain agreement with the State, sentenced appellant

1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011 ).2

to three years’ confinement. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’ s permission to appeal. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 44.02 (West 2006); T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been m ade part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2 (d). Here, the trial court’ s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id

. T he trial court ’s certification states t hat this is a plea bargain case and that the defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial court’ s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal , we must dismiss this appeal

. See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

- bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardl ess of the basis for the appeal.”)

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.3 PER CURIA M Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).
#### § 87.6 Extension of period for submitting plans.

An extension of the one hundred and eighty (180) day period, not to exceed ninety (90) days, may be requested by the Secretary or by the governing body of any affected tribe or group submitting such request to both Congressional Committees through the Secretary, and any such request shall be subject to the approval of both Congressional Committees.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 650

Expressing the sense of the House with respect to the release of findings

and recommendations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

regarding the electricity crisis in California.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 25, 2000

Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Mr. PACKARD, and Mr. HUNTER) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House with respect to the release

of findings and recommendations by the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission regarding the electricity crisis

in California.

Whereas the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has

completed its investigation of the California energy crisis:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the United States

2 House of Representatives that, before November 1, 2000,

3 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should make

4 public its findings and recommendations regarding the

5 electricity crisis in California.

Æ
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.161 How is a hearing arranged? ( a ) If a hearing is to be held, the IBIA will refer the Indian tribe or tribal organization's case to the Hearings Division of the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The case will then be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105.
( b ) Within 15 days of the date of the referral, the ALJ will hold a pre-hearing conference, by telephone or in person, to decide whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, or whether it is possible to decide the appeal based on the written record. At the pre-hearing conference the ALJ will provide for: ( 1 ) A briefing and discovery schedule;
( 2 ) A schedule for the exchange of information, including, but not limited to witness and exhibit lists, if an evidentiary hearing is to be held;
( 3 ) The simplification or clarification of issues;
( 4 ) The limitation of the number of expert witnesses, or avoidance of similar cumulative evidence, if an evidentiary hearing is to be held;
( 5 ) The possibility of agreement disposing of all or any of the issues in dispute; and
( 6 ) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the appeal.
( c ) The ALJ shall order a written record to be made of any conference results that are not reflected in a transcript.
### [§2410b. Renumbered §3845]
### §1245. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §21, 62 Stat. 862, eff. Sept. 1, 1948

Section, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, §209(e), 42 Stat. 1468, related to loans and gratuities to examiners.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 67

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Armed Services

in the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 12, 1999

Mr. SPENCE (for himself and Mr. SKELTON) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on

Armed Services in the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Armed Serv4 ices (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries,

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $10,599,855 for the One Hundred

9 Sixth Congress.
2

•HRES 67 IH

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $5,114,079 shall be available

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at

5 noon on January 3, 1999, and ending immediately

6 before noon on January 3, 2000; and

7 (2) not more than $5,485,776 shall be available

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at

9 noon on January 3, 2000, and ending immediately

10 before noon on January 3, 2001.

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration.

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by

19 the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
#### John A. Ryan, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. Pennsylvania Coal Company, Appellant.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ.
### §949s. Cruel or unusual punishments prohibited

Punishment by flogging, or by branding, marking, or tattooing on the body, or any other cruel or unusual punishment, may not be adjudged by a military commission under this chapter or inflicted under this chapter upon any person subject to this chapter. The use of irons, single or double, except for the purpose of safe custody, is prohibited under this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, §1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2598.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 949s, added Pub. L. 109–366, §3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2617, prohibited cruel or unusual punishments, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.
### §715. Attending Physician to the Congress: grade

A general officer serving as Attending Physician to the Congress, while so serving, holds the grade of major general. A flag officer serving as Attending Physician to the Congress, while so serving, holds the grade of rear admiral (upper half).

(Added Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title V, §508(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1749.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 715, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 33, related to detail of members of regular and reserve components to assist those components prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §§1662(g)(2), 1691, Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2996, 3026, effective Dec. 1, 1994. See section 12501 of this title.
# C_2006331EN.01002901.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/29

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission

(Case T-237/02) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Procedure for controlling State aid - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Implied refusal - Obligation to carry out a concrete, individual examination - Intervention - Intervener's claims, pleas and arguments)

(2006/C 331/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (Ilmenau, Germany) (represented by: initially G. Schohe and C. Arhold, and subsequently C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and K. Wistrand, Agents) and Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä, Agent)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Schott Glas (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 28 May 2002 refusing the applicant access to documents relating to procedures for controlling State aid.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission Decision of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses access to the documents relating to the investigation procedures in respect of aid granted to Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission Decision of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses access to the documents relating to the investigation procedures in respect of aid granted to Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau. The latter is to bear a quarter of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau. The latter is to bear a quarter of its own costs;

| 4. | Orders Schott Glas, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Schott Glas, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.

1

---
# C_2006190EN.01003202.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/32

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Le Maire v Commission

(Case F-27/05) (1)

1

(Officials - Remuneration - Refusal to grant the daily subsistence allowances)

(2006/C 190/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Viviane Le Maire (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Bournéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)

Defendant:

:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities refusing the applicant the right to the daily subsistence allowances provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, following her entry into service on 16 February 2004

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and half of the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and half of the costs of the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 182 of 23.07.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-191/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

1

---
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

78-9 

June 19, 1978 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041 Termination by Plan Administrator

4062 Liability of Employer in Single Employer Plans 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter to * * * of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC"), requesting

a ruling regarding employer liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). 

The facts, as we understand them, are as follows. 

Pursuant to an agreement dated November 19, 1977, * * *, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, * * * * * * sold

substantially all of their assets to * * * and two subsidiaries formed by * * * Such two subsidiaries are known as * * *,

and * * * ("Buyers"). Prior to the sale * * * and * * * ("Sellers") maintained a pension plan (the "Plan") covered by Title

IV of ERISA. According to the November 29 agreement, at the closing, the Buyers would become successor employers

to the Sellers, and assume the Plan and all of the Sellers' liabilities under the Plan. The closing date was December 29,

1977. 

W e further understand that on December 29, 1977, the Buyers executed an agreement adopting and agreeing to

maintain the Plan. 

You asked whether the above described events constitute a termination of the Plan. You also asked whether,

assuming [*2] there was no termination, the Sellers would encounter any liability to the PBGC if the Plan should

terminate subsequent to the Buyers' adoption of the Plan. 

Assuming the facts to be as described above, there has been no termination of the Plan. Moreover, according to the

letter dated January 4, 1978, from the Plan's actuaries and your own representations, on the closing date of the sale, the

Plan had sufficient assets to pay all guaranteed benefits. Therefore, assuming that the information which you have

supplied the PBGC is correct, if the Plan should terminate in the future with insufficient assets to pay guaranteed benefits,

the Sellers would not be responsible to the PBGC for any liabilities of the Plan. 

I trust this has been of assistance. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel