alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006310EN.01001101.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/11

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 October 2006 — Ritek and Prodisc Technology v Council

(Case T-274/02) (1)

1

(Dumping - Recordable compact discs originating in Taiwan - Determination of the dumping margin - Choice of the asymmetrical method of calculation - Pattern of export prices which differ according to the purchasers, regions or periods - ‘Zeroing’ technique)

(2006/C 310/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ritek Corp (Hsin-Chu, Taiwan) and Prodisc Technology Inc. (Taipei Hsien, Taiwan) (represented by: first, K. Adamantopoulos, V. Akritidis and D. De Notaris, lawyers, and subsequently by K. Adamantopoulos and J. Branton, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by S. Marquardt, acting as Agent, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by T. Scharf and S. Meany, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2002 of 13 June 2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of recordable compact discs originating in Taiwan (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Council; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Council;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.

1

---
### §882. Art. 82. Soliciting commission of offenses

(a) Soliciting Commission of Offenses Generally.—Any person subject to this chapter who solicits or advises another to commit an offense under this chapter (other than an offense specified in subsection (b)) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Soliciting Desertion, Mutiny, Sedition, or Misbehavior Before the Enemy.—Any person subject to this chapter who solicits or advises another to violate section 885 of this title (article 85), section 894 of this title (article 94), or section 899 of this title (article 99)—

(1) if the offense solicited or advised is attempted or is committed, shall be punished with the punishment provided for the commission of the offense; and

(2) if the offense solicited or advised is not attempted or committed, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 66; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, §5403, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2939; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, §1081(c)(1)(M), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1598.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 882(a)882(b) | 50:676(a).50:676(b). | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §1, (Art. 82), 64 Stat. 134. |

882(b)

50:676(b).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2017—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–91 substituted "section 899" for "section 99" in introductory provisions.

2016—Pub. L. 114–328 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to solicitation of desertion, mutiny, misbehavior before the enemy, or sedition.

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

#### Effective Date of 2017 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–91 effective immediately after the amendments made by div. E (§§5001–5542) of Pub. L. 114–328 take effect as provided for in section 5542 of that Act (10 U.S.C. 801 note), see section 1081(c)(4) of Pub. L. 115–91, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.
### §908. Art. 108. Military property of United States—Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition

Any person subject to this chapter who, without proper authority—

(1) sells or otherwise disposes of;

(2) willfully or through neglect damages, destroys, or loses; or

(3) willfully or through neglect suffers to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of;

any military property of the United States, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 71.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 908 | 50:702. | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §1 (Art. 108), 64 Stat. 138. |
#### SKILLERN’S EXECUTORS *v.*MAY’S EXECUTORS.

It is too late to question the jurisdiction of the circuit court after the cause has been sent back by mandate.

•THIS was a case certified from the circuit court for the district of Kentucky, the judges of that court being divided in opinion. *°*

The former decree of the court below had been reversed in this court, and the cause M remanded for further proceedings to be had therein, in order that an equal and just partition of the 2.,500 'acres of land, mentioned in the assignment of the 6th of March,-1785, be made between the legal representatives of the said George Skillern and the said John May.5’’ *(Vide ante, vol. 4. p.*141.)

The cause being before the court below upon the mandate, the question occurred which is stated in the following certificate, viz. *v*In this case a final descree had been pronounced, and by writ of error removed to the supreme court, who reversed the decree, and after the cause was sent back to this court it was discovered to be a cause not within-the-jurisdiction of the court ; but a question arose whether it efin now be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, after the supreme cqurt had acted thereon. The opinion of the. judges of this court being opposed on this question, it is ordered “ that the same be adjourned to the supreme court for their decision,” See.

*This court,*after consideration, directed the following opinion to be certified to the court below, viz.

*268
      *“*^ aPPearS that the merits of this canse had been finally decided in this court, and that its mandate required only the execution of its decree, it is the opinion of this court that the circuit court is bound to carry that decree into execution, although the. jurisdiction of that court be not alleged i'n the pleadings.”
#### Sylvanus G. Duley and Others, Appellants, v. Alfred J. Purvis, Respondent.

— Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00415

- CR

Christian Omar Stowe v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Cause No. 16

- 12

- 29737

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered th is cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 27, 2019
#### § 2.810 Will the decision-maker acknowledge receipt of my Objection to the Statement of Performance?

Yes. The decision-maker will provide an acknowledgement of receipt of your Objection to the Statement of Performance within 10 calendar days of receipt in the form of a letter that will be mailed to the address you provided in your Objection.
#### § 226.23 Easements for wells off leased premises.

The Superintendent, with the consent of the Osage Tribal Council, may grant commercial and noncommercial easements for wells off the leased premises to be used for purposes associated with oil and gas production. Rental payable to the Osage Tribe for such easements shall be an amount agreed to by Grantee and the Osage Tribal Council subject to the approval of the Superintendent. Grantee shall be responsible for all damages resulting from the use of such wells and settlement therefor shall be made as provided in § 226.21.
# C_2006270EN.01000101.xml

| 7.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 November 2006

(2006/C 270/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2702 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 150,45 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4568 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,66980 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1465 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5965 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,55 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2510 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5777 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,931 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 259,32 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8263 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5158 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,63 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 36,177 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8393 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6507 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4418 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8847 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9073 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9911 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 196,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4015 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0106 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3530 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 601,37 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6464 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,440 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,9850 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,648 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2702

JPY

Japanese yen

150,45

DKK

Danish krone

7,4568

GBP

Pound sterling

0,66980

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1465

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5965

ISK

Iceland króna

86,55

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2510

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5777

CZK

Czech koruna

27,931

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

259,32

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8263

RON

Romanian leu

3,5158

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,63

SKK

Slovak koruna

36,177

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8393

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6507

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4418

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8847

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9073

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9911

KRW

South Korean won

1 196,97

ZAR

South African rand

9,4015

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0106

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3530

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 601,37

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6464

PHP

Philippine peso

63,440

RUB

Russian rouble

33,9850

THB

Thai baht

46,648

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### § 522.12 Individually owned class II gaming operations operating on September 1, 1986.

For licensing of individually owned gaming operations operating on September 1, 1986, under § 502.3(e) of this chapter, a tribal ordinance shall contain the same requirements as those in § 522.11(a) through (d).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

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

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50397 

Conference Calendar

 

GREGORY ANTHONY PERKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TOMMY ALLEN,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-98-CV-735-NSN

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

February 14, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregory Anthony Perkins, Texas prisoner # 725731, has filed

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal

from the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

civil rights complaint following a jury verdict in favor of the

defendant. By filing a motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal

in this court, Perkins is challenging the magistrate judge’s

certification, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed.

R. App. P. 24(a), that IFP should not be granted because any
No. 00-50397 

-2-

appeal would not be taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Perkins has not demonstrated that he will raise a

nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Perkins’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is

DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th

Cir. R. 42.2. 

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a

“strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Perkins is

CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action

or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any

facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
H. Res. 438

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 15, 2000.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 1000) to amend title 49, United States Code,

to reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes. All points of order against the

conference report and against its consideration are waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
### §8451. Location

The United States Naval Academy shall be located at Annapolis, Maryland.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 428, §6951; renumbered §8451, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(c)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6951 | 34 U.S.C. 1021. | R.S. 1511. |

The words "United States" are inserted before the words "Naval Academy" to state the full title. The word "established" is omitted as executed. The words "in the State of" are omitted as surplusage.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 8451, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 524, provided that an officer who is promoted to a temporary grade is considered to have accepted his promotion on date of order announcing it, unless he expressly declines promotion, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–513, title II, §207, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2884, effective Sept. 15, 1981.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6951 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.
### §762. Notice to the Commission and right to be heard

(a) The clerk shall give the notice required by section 342 of this title to the Commission.

(b) The Commission may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in a case under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2618.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### senate report no. 95–989

Section 762 provides that the Commission shall be given such notice as is appropriate of an order for relief in a bankruptcy case and that the Commission may raise and may appear and may be heard on any issue in case involving a commodity broker liquidation.
#### § 290.15 Must the Indian tribe establish trust accounts with financial institutions for minors and legal incompetents?

No. The tribe may establish trust accounts with financial institutions but should explore investment options to structure the accounts to the benefit of their members while ensuring compliance with IGRA and this part.
Note to Docket

Scott Jackson
December 19, 2011

Email communication was received from Roland C. Hea , CDPHE Permitting Section Supervisor, to EPA Region 8 dated November 18, 2011. This emai l explains four different instances where CDPHE, under its existing NSR program, approved an alternate representative baseline period of emissions for facilities. Colorado’s approval o f these more representative baseline emissions is consistent with federal regulations, in particul ar, the definition of “actual emissions,” under the pre-NSR Reform Rule. A phone conversation with Den a Wojtach, CDPHE Regulatory Compliance and Support Unit Supervisor, about the E PA’s usage of the email from Mr. Hea took place on December 19, 2011. EPA explained tha t we intended to use the instances to demonstrate that the option of using an alternative , more representative period was valid under the existing NSR program and that the option had be en exercised.
# C_2006310EN.01003102.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/31

---

Action brought on 23 October 2006 — Roodhuijzen v Commission

(Case F-122/06)

(2006/C 310/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Anton Pieter Roodhuijzen (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28 February 2006, confirmed on 20 March 2006, not to recognise the applicant's partnership with Ms H as a non-marital partnership for the purposes of the sickness insurance scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28 February 2006, confirmed on 20 March 2006, not to recognise the applicant's partnership with Ms H as a non-marital partnership for the purposes of the sickness insurance scheme;

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 July 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 27 March 2006 under Number R/230/06; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 July 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 27 March 2006 under Number R/230/06;

| — | 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 of Dutch nationality, requested that his partnership with Ms H, a cohabitation agreement drawn up before a notary and recognised under Dutch law, be taken into consideration in order that his partner could benefit from the Community sickness insurance scheme. The administration rejected the request, even after the applicant produced a certificate from his country's Embassy in Luxembourg, which stated that the contract in question does indeed confer the status of stable non-marital partners on the applicant and his companion.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a plea of infringement of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 1(2)(c)(i) of Annex VII thereof, and of Article 12 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease. He also pleads a manifest error of assessment, breach of the obligation to give reasons and failure to observe general principles of law, in particular the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment between officials.

---
#### § 249.4 Identification of fishing equipment.

All fishing gear or other equipment used in the exercise of any off-reservation treaty fishing right shall be marked in such manner as shall be prescribed in regulations issued pursuant to § 249.2 hereof to disclose the identity of its owner or user. In the absence of proof to the contrary, any fishing gear which is not so marked or labeled shall be presumed not to be used in the exercise of an off-reservation treaty fishing right and shall be subject to control or seizure under State law.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Guidance Document Database 
-  Employer Liability 

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.

# Employer liability

                  -  Opinion Letter 80-01
State liability with respect to private-sector plans to which employees contribute.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 85-08
The described spin-off is a reportable event and sales transaction principles apply to the spin-off and transfer transactions.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 77-156
Where proposed language in CBA will not affect Title IV coverage, it will not prevent PBGC claim for employer liability.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 76-111
Asset purchaser assuming some plans was not a successor corporation for plans that it did not assume.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 78-10
Whether an employer that purchased a division of another company and rehired its employees would be treated as a successor corporation and assume liability for existing plans.
-               document            
 

                  -  Opinion Letter 77-131
PBGC examines financial information of an employer and all trades or businesses under the same common control to assess the employer’s hardship or necessity for deferred payments to meet liability.
-               document
### §8678. Chief of Naval Operations: certification required for disposal of combatant vessels

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no combatant vessel of the Navy may be sold, transferred, or otherwise disposed of unless the Chief of Naval Operations certifies that it is not essential to the defense of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VIII, §824(b), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1710, §7308; renumbered §8678, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(2), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7308 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.