alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007117EN.01003703.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/37

---

Action brought on 28 March 2007 — Quadu v Parliament

(Case F-29/07)

(2007/C 117/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sandro Quadu (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 April 2006 appointing the applicant as an official of the European Communities inasmuch as it determines his classification in grade AST 2, step 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 April 2006 appointing the applicant as an official of the European Communities inasmuch as it determines his classification in grade AST 2, step 3;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision of 26 April 2006, the applicant, at the time a member of temporary staff of the Parliament classified in grade C*4, step 7, and successful candidate in an internal competition for clerical assistants (career bracket C4-5) No C/348, published before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants (1), was appointed as an official and classified in grade AST 2, step 3.

1

In his action, the applicant asserts inter alia breach of the competition notice and of the principle of equality of treatment and of non-discrimination. In particular, he contests the administration's interpretation of Article 5(4) of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations as meaning that the members of temporary staff who are appointed officials only have the right to retain their former grade and step in cases where the appointment entails promotion to a higher grade.

---

(1)  OJ L 124 of 27.4.2004, p. 1.

1

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7047

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANES SUBASIC, a/k/a Mladen Subasic , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:09

- cr - 00216

- FL

- 3; 5:16

- cv - 00089

- FL )

Submitted : November 15, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018

Before MOTZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Anes Subasic, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anes Subasic seeks to ap peal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this s tandard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 8 5. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Subasic has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Subasic’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


     Each of the undersigned  hereby  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly  Report of Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-Q  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2007,  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that information  contained in the such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the Company.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated:  NOVEMBER 9, 2007
        ----------------


                                             /S/ TIMOTHY T. TEVENS
                                             ---------------------
                                             Timothy T. Tevens
                                             Chief Executive Officer



                                             /S/ KAREN L. HOWARD
                                             -------------------
                                             Karen L. Howard
                                             Chief Financial Officer
# C_2007021EN.01000401.xml

| 30.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 21/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 January 2007

(2007/C 21/04)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2921 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 157,70 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4550 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,66020 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0725 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6216 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 89,13 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1750 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5787 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,215 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 256,68 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9290 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4045 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 35,268 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8460 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6728 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5306 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0929 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8571 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9899 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 215,16 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4759 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0454 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3727 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 787,18 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5256 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,487 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,3330 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,953 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2921

JPY

Japanese yen

157,70

DKK

Danish krone

7,4550

GBP

Pound sterling

0,66020

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0725

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6216

ISK

Iceland króna

89,13

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1750

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5787

CZK

Czech koruna

28,215

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

256,68

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9290

RON

Romanian leu

3,4045

SKK

Slovak koruna

35,268

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8460

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6728

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5306

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0929

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8571

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9899

KRW

South Korean won

1 215,16

ZAR

South African rand

9,4759

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0454

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3727

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 787,18

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5256

PHP

Philippine peso

63,487

RUB

Russian rouble

34,3330

THB

Thai baht

43,953

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# 50 50 Healthy
§ 17.435 Employment assistance to students. ( a ) *Assistance by recipient in making available outside employment.* A recipient that assists any agency, organization, or person in making employment available to any of its students: ( 1 ) Shall assure itself that such employment is made available without discrimination on the basis of sex; and
( 2 ) Shall not render such services to any agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of sex in its employment practices.
( b ) *Employment of students by recipients.* A recipient that employs any of its students shall not do so in a manner that violates §§ 17.500 through 17.550.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The OLAO acquisition newsletter[electronic resource].**
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3066:
Item Number:0506-M-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000599170
 
2002: JanFebMarAprMayJunJulSepOctNovDec
2003: JanFebMarAprMayJunJul/AugSep
2004: 01020304
2005: 01020304
2006: 01020304
2007: Jan/FebMar/AprMay/JunJul/AugSep/OctNov/Dec
2008: Mar/AprMay/JunNov/Dec
2009: Jan/FebMar/Apr
 
March 3, 2020
# C_2007096EN.01001802.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-320/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/14/EC - Establishment of a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community - Failure to implement within the period prescribed)

(2007/C 96/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

78-6 

April 5, 1978 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4048 Date of Termination 

OPINION: 

 We are writing to you in your capacity as the plan administrator of the * * * (the "Plan"). 

On April 18, 1977, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") received a notice of intent to terminate the

Plan, dated April 15, 1977. The proposed date of Plan termination in the notice is January 19, 1977. 

Under Section 4041(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1341(a),

a plan administrator must propose a plan termination date at least 10 days later than the date of the notice. 

However, under 29 C.F.R. § 2604, the PBGC Notice of Intent to Terminate Regulation, incomplete notices are

voidable at the PBGC's discretion. In this case, the PBGC will not void the notice because of the error concerning the

termination date. 

Section 4048 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1348, provides that a plan termination date may be established by agreement

between the PBGC and the plan administrator. 

Certain facts have been brought to our attention which support a January 19, 1977 Plan termination. On that date,

the Plan's sponsor, * * * filed a petition under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act. On the same day, * * * discharged all

its [*2] non-supervisory personnel, causing Plan participation to decrease by approximately 70 percent. Further, notice

was furnished to all employees that the Plan would terminate on January 19, 1977. Consequently, no employee expected

benefit accruals based on service after that date. 

 Accordingly, under the facts as they are known to us at this time, the PBGC finds January 19, 1977 to be an

acceptable Plan termination date. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
H. Res. 627

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 12, 2000.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111)

making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2001, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be

considered as read for amendment. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of

debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Attest:

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

§ 900.222 What goes into a decision? A decision shall: ( a ) Describe the claim or dispute;
( b ) Refer to the relevant terms of the contract;
( c ) Set out the factual areas of agreement and disagreement;
( d ) Set out the actual decision, based on the facts, and outline the reasoning which supports the decision; and
( e ) Contain the following language:
This is a final decision. You may appeal this decision to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA), 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20245. If you decide to appeal, you must, within 90 days from the date you receive this decision, mail or otherwise furnish written notice to the CBCA and provide a copy to the individual from whose decision the appeal is taken. The notice must indicate that an appeal is intended, and refer to the decision and contract number. Instead of appealing to the CBCA, you may bring an action in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims or in the United States District Court within 12 months of the date you receive this notice.
[61 FR 32501, June 24, 1996, as amended at 71 FR 76601, Dec. 21, 2006; 75 FR 31701, June 4, 2010]
# C_2006178EN.01004001.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/40

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2006 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena v Commission

(Case T -42/02) (1)

1

(2006/C 178/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

August 9, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00307

- CR

Christian HART

, Appel lant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas Trial Court No. 17

- 05

- 00037

- CRK Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

After we granted court reporter Leticia M. Escamilla ’ s first and second motion s for extension of time to file the reporter’s record, the record was due on August 8, 2018

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c). On the second extended due date, the court reporter filed a third request for
an extension of time to file the record until September 5

, 2018.
The reporter’s request is GRANTED. We ORDER court reporter Leticia M. Escamilla to
file t he reporter’s record w ith this court by September 5 , 2018. See id.

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BE GRANTED.
If the reporter’s record is not filed as ordered, a SHOW CAUSE ORDER may issue directing Leticia M. Escamilla to appear on a day cer tain and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to file the record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c); see also T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 21.002 (West 2004) (authorizing contemnor punishment up to “a fine of not more than $500 or confinement in the county jail for not more than six months, or both such a fine and confinement in jail ”); Johnson v. State , 151 S.W.3d 193, 195

– 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (noting the court’s previous action holding a court reporter in contempt for “repeatedly fail[ ing] to prepare and file the record” and “order[ing] him incarcerated .

. . until the record was finished”).The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Leticia M. Escamilla by certified mail, return receipt requested, with del ivery restricted to addressee only, or give other personal notice of this order with proof of delivery.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of August, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Sources of Risk from Drug Products

Known side effects

Unavoidable

Avoidable

Medicationerrors

Product qualitydefects

Preventableadverseevents

Injuryor death

Remaininguncertainties
        -  Unexpected side effects
        -  Unstudied uses
        -  Unstudied populations

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

Modular 

Structure of Common Technical Doc

u

ment

Nonclinical

written and tabulated 

summaries

Module I

Administrative

and prescribing

information

(not harmonized)

Module II

General introduction

and overall 

summaries of

quality, n

onclinical

and clinical information

Clinical

written and tabulated 

summaries

Module IV

Nonclinical

study reports

Module III

Quality

data

Module V

Clinical

study reports

Source: CDER Report to the Nation 2001

# UNKNOWN-0.unknown

# UNKNOWN-1.unknown

# UNKNOWN-2.unknown

# UNKNOWN-3.unknown

# UNKNOWN-4.unknown

# UNKNOWN-5.unknown

# UNKNOWN-6.unknown

# UNKNOWN-7.unknown

# UNKNOWN-8.unknown

# UNKNOWN-9.unknown

# UNKNOWN-10.unknown

# UNKNOWN-11.unknown

# UNKNOWN-12.unknown

# UNKNOWN-13.unknown

# UNKNOWN-14.unknown

# UNKNOWN-15.unknown

# UNKNOWN-16.unknown

# UNKNOWN-17.unknown

# UNKNOWN-18.unknown

# UNKNOWN-19.unknown

# UNKNOWN-20.unknown

# UNKNOWN-21.unknown

# UNKNOWN-22.unknown

# UNKNOWN-23.unknown
-  Home 
-  About 
-  Civil Rights 

# In This Section

                      -  Employee Services                          -  Overview 
                        -  Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) 
                        -  Minority Serving Institutions Program 
                        -  No FEAR Act 
                        -  Special Emphasis Programs 
                      -  Public Services                          -  Overview 
                        -  Small Business Utilization in Federal Projects 
                        -  Environmental Justice 
                        -  Limited English Proficiency 
                      -  Grant Recipient Information 
                      -  PHMSA Office of Civil Rights 

## Related Links

                  -                                          Executive Order on Limited English Proficiency                   
                  -                                          Federal Interagency Working Group on Limited English Proficiency                   

## Contact Us

Office of Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**phmsa.civilrights@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-9638****Fax:**202-366-0506**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Limited English Proficiency 

Title VI's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of national origin has been interpreted by courts to include discrimination on the basis of English proficiency. Under Title VI, recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to provide LEP individuals with meaningful access to their programs and services. Providing "meaningful access" will generally involve some combination of oral interpretation services and written translation of vital documents.