alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1236

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for commencement

of the construction of the Arrowrock Dam Hydroelectric Project in the

State of Idaho.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 17, 1999

Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

A BILL

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for

commencement of the construction of the Arrowrock

Dam Hydroelectric Project in the State of Idaho.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY

4 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT.

5 Notwithstanding the time period specified in section

6 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would

7 otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com8 mission project numbered 4656, the Commission may, at

9 the request of the licensee for the project and after reason-
2

•S 1236 IS

1 able notice, in accordance with the good faith, due dili2 gence, and public interest requirements of that section and

3 the Commission’s procedures under that section, extend

4 until March 26, 2005, the time period during which the

5 licensee is required to commence construction of the

6 project.

Æ
# C_2007095EN.01002601.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/26

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 22 February 2007 — N.V. Lammers & Van Cleeff v Belgische Staat

(Case C-105/07)

(2007/C 95/47)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: N.V. Lammers & Van Cleeff

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Defendant:

Question referred

Do Articles 12, 43, 46, 48, 56 and 58 EC preclude Belgian national statutory rules, as set out in the then applicable Articles 18(1), point 3, and 18(2), point 3, of the WIB92, whereby interest payments were not classified as dividends and were therefore not taxable if those interest payments were made to a director which was a Belgian company, whereas in the same circumstances those interest payments were classified as dividends, and therefore taxable, if they were made to a director which was a foreign company?

---
### [§406. Renumbered §401(f)]
# C_2007119EN.01000201.xml

| 30.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 May 2007

(2007/C 119/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3453 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 163,71 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4518 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67853 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2032 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6525 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 83,3 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0951 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5832 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,325 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 249,83 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,812 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,2697 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,975 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7826 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6413 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4541 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,52 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8509 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0547 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 249,51 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5594 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2848 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3125 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 761,96 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5572 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,843 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,831 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,171 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3453

JPY

Japanese yen

163,71

DKK

Danish krone

7,4518

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67853

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2032

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6525

ISK

Iceland króna

83,3

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0951

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5832

CZK

Czech koruna

28,325

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

249,83

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,812

RON

Romanian leu

3,2697

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,975

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7826

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6413

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4541

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,52

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8509

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0547

KRW

South Korean won

1 249,51

ZAR

South African rand

9,5594

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2848

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3125

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 761,96

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5572

PHP

Philippine peso

61,843

RUB

Russian rouble

34,831

THB

Thai baht

44,171

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Exhibit 13.2
 GRUPO TELEVISA, S.A.B.
 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    The Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, to
which this statement is filed as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/  Salvi Rafael Folch ViaderoName:
    Salvi Rafael Folch ViaderoTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
§ 205.211 Applicability of court decisions under the UCC. ( a ) Court decisions under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), about the scope of the “farm products” exception in Section 9-307(1) thereof, and interpreting the terms therein, particularly “person engaged in farming operations” which is not defined in the Section, are applicable to an extent in interpreting the Section. The basis of this is the legislative intent of the Section to pre-empt State laws reflecting that “farm products” exception, as shown in the House Committee Report on Pub. L. 99-198, No. 99-271, Part 1, September 13, 1985, at pages 108 *et seq.*
( b ) That UCC Section 9-307(1) reads as follows:
(1) A buyer in ordinary course of business (subsection (9) of Section 1-201) *other than a person buying farm products from a person engaged in farming operations* takes free of a security interest created by his seller even though the security interest is perfected and even though the buyer knows of its existence. (emphasis added)
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-21026 Conference Calendar

DANIEL LOUIS JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GAYNELLE GRIFFIN JONES, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CV-373

-------------------- August 26, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daniel Louis Johnson, Texas prisoner No. 465571, appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus for failure to authorize payment of the filing fee. However, Johnson has failed to brief any issues related to the district court’s order of dismissal. Although this court liberally construes the pleadings of pro se appellants, arguments must still be briefed to be preserved. Price v. Digital Equip. Corp. , 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1988)(citations omitted). Because Johnson has failedNo. 98-21026 -2- to brief the only issue available to him on appeal, his appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is without merit, it is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. DISMISSED.
# C_2010346EN.01003001.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/30

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2010 — Belgian State v Maître Pierre Henfling, Maître Raphaël Davin, Maître Koenraad Tanghe (acting as trustees in bankruptcy of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA)

(Case C-464/10)

()

2010/C 346/49

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Belgian State

Applicant:

Defendants: Maître Pierre Henfling, Maître Raphaël Davin, Maître Koenraad Tanghe (acting as trustees in bankruptcy of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA)

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Articles 6(4) and 13(B)(f), of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, be interpreted as precluding tax exemption in respect of services supplied by a commission agent acting in its own name, but on behalf of a principal who organises supply of services referred to in Article 13(B)(f)?

---
# C_2010113EN.01003601.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/36

---

Action brought on 10 March 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-127/10)

2010/C 113/56

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Karanasou-Apostolopoulou and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposing Directive 2006/42/EC into national law expired on 29 June 2008.

---

(1)  OJ L 157 of 9.6.2006, p. 24.

1

---
#### § 146.21 Definitions.

*Table-egg layer.* A domesticated chicken grown for the primary purpose of producing eggs for human consumption.

*Table-egg layer pullet.* A sexually immature domesticated chicken grown for the primary purpose of producing eggs for human consumption.

[71 FR 56328, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended at 76 FR 15796, Mar. 22, 2011]
### §4910. Construction

#### (a) PMI not required

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impose any requirement for private mortgage insurance in connection with a residential mortgage transaction.

#### (b) No preclusion of cancellation or termination agreements

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preclude cancellation or termination, by agreement between a mortgagor and the holder of the mortgage, of a requirement for private mortgage insurance in connection with a residential mortgage transaction before the cancellation or termination date established by this chapter for the mortgage.

(Pub. L. 105–216, §11, July 29, 1998, 112 Stat. 908.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 1 year after July 29, 1998, see section 13 of Pub. L. 105–216, set out as a note under section 4901 of this title.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

79-1 

January 17, 1979 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4082(b). Effective Date; Special Rules. Applicability of Title IV to Plan Terminations Occurring Between July

1, 1974 and September 2, 1974 

OPINION: 

 This letter refers to your request that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") reconsider its

September 29, 1977, determination that the * * * Division of * * * Pension Plan for Hourly Employees at * * * (the

"Plan") terminated prior to July 1, 1974, and that, consequently the Plan is not subject to the PBGC's guarantee of basic

benefits. As part of this reconsideration the PBGC has reviewed the case file in this matter, including the information

submitted by you and * * * and the entire Arbitration Opinion and Award. 

As a result of its review, the PBGC has determined that the Plan terminated prior to July 1, 1974. We have

considered your documentation that 3 employees worked from July 1, 1974 through November 30, 1974 and that these

employees continued to accrue benefits to their date of termination as set forth in the Arbitration Award. 

However, other facts indicate that the plan terminated before July 1, 1974. On December 14, 1972 the Board of

Directors * * * (the "Company") adopted a resolution discontinuing all operations [*2] of the * * * Division as soon as

possible. We have been advised that the same date was indicated on the Internal Revenue Service Application for

Determination as the date of termination of the Plan. Employment terminations were announced by the Company on

December 29, 1972. The number of active employees decreased from 572 in November 1972 to 44 in November 1973,

at which time the complete plant and foundry were sold at auction. Seventeen employees remained in December 1973

to guard and maintain the plant, and prepare and ship the equipment which was sold. This number decreased to 3 by May

1974 and these 3 were terminated in November 1974. The last contribution by the Company to the Plan was made in

June 1973 and was for the year 1972. 

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances herein, we reaffirm the conclusion that for the purposes of Title

IV the Plan ceased to be an on-going plan prior to July 1, 1974. In any event, there appears to be no basis for concluding

that the plan terminated between July 1 and September 2, 1974. Under these circumstances, we are precluded from

guaranteeing benefits under Section 4082 (b) of ERISA. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### [§9833. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–480, §1(4), June 8, 1962, 76 Stat. 94]

Section, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 593, related to accountability of Air Force officers for public money. See section 2773 of this title.
# C_2011252EN.01005201.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/52

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 26 May 2011 — Lebedef v Commission

(Case F-40/10) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Annual leave - Absence without prior permission after annual leave used up - Forfeiture of remuneration - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations)

2011/C 252/111

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision stating that the applicant had, without prior permission, exceeded his annual leave entitlement for 2009 by 5,5 days

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses Mr. Lebedef’s action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses Mr. Lebedef’s action;

| 2. | Orders Mr. Lebedef to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr. Lebedef to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, of 31/07/10, p. 55.

1

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41570 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ALEJANDRO MORALES

- FLORES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 1694

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejandro Morales

Flores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Morales

- Flores h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* 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 1 8 , 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41570 Document: 00513721903 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016No. 15

- 41570

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41570 Document: 00513721903 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
# C_2007105EN.01000401.xml

| 9.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/4

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — SUB 01-2007

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

(2007/C 105/05)

The Commission is planning to grant subsidies totalling the indicative amount of EUR 5 700 000 to promote transport policy objectives. The policy priorities have been fixed in the 2007 Work Programme adopted by the Commission.

The main topics selected are road safety and optimising infrastructure use by operators (road and maritime transport).

Information on this call for proposals is available on the DG TREN website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/grants/proposal_en.htm

---
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE AND PURCHASE

     This First Amendment to Agreement of Sale and Purchase
("Amendment") is entered into effective as of November 25, 1996, by
and between Walden Residential Properties, Inc., a Maryland
corporation ("Purchaser") and Nashboro Village Apartments, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership ("Seller").

                            BACKGROUND

     A.   Seller and Purchaser entered into that certain Agreement
of Sale and Purchase ("Agreement") covering a certain parcel of
real property located in the City of Nashville, Tennessee, more
commonly known as the Nashboro Village Apartments and more
particularly described in the Agreement.

     B.   Seller and Purchaser now desire to amend the Agreement as
provided below.

                            AGREEMENT

     1.   Defined Terms.  All capitalized terms used but not
defined herein shall have the same meanings given such terms in the
Agreement.

     2.   Inspection Period.  The Agreement hereby is amended to
provide that the Inspection Period hereby is extended to 5:00 p.m.,
Dallas, Texas time, on December 6, 1996 ("Extended Inspection
Date").

     3.   Earnest Money. Upon expiration of the Inspection Period
without termination of the Agreement by Purchaser, Purchaser shall,
on the Extended Inspection Date, deposit with the Title Company the
amount of $250,000 ("Additional Deposit") as additional Earnest
Money, which Additional Deposit shall become a part of the Earnest
Money, subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement as
modified hereby.

     4.   Ratification.  The Agreement remains in full force and
effect as expressly modified by this Amendment and hereby is
ratified and confirmed by the parties thereto.  If there is a
conflict between the terms of the Agreement and this Amendment, the
terms of this Amendment control.

     5.   Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in several
counterparts (including by telecopy with originals to follow as
soon as possible), all of which are identical and all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

<PAGE>
     EXECUTED effective as of the date first written above.

                              Seller:
                              
                              NASHBORO VILLAGE APARTMENTS, L.P.,
                              a Delaware limited partnership

                              By:  NVA, INC.,
                                   a Delaware corporation,
                                   General Partner

                                   By:  _________________________
                                        Name:  __________________
                                        Title: __________________

                              Purchaser:

                              WALDEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, INC.,
                              a Maryland corporation

                              By:  ______________________________
                                   Name:  _______________________
                                   Title:  ________________________
§ 169.206 How will BIA decide whether to approve an amendment of a right-of-way? ( a ) We may disapprove a request for an amendment of a right-of-way only if at least one of the following is true: ( 1 ) The Indian landowners have not consented to the amendment under § 169.107 and we have not consented on their behalf under § 169.108;
( 2 ) The grantee's sureties for the bonds or alternative securities have not consented;
( 3 ) The grantee is in violation of the right-of-way grant;
( 4 ) The requirements of this subpart have not been met; or
( 5 ) We find a compelling reason to withhold approval in order to protect the best interests of the Indian landowners.
( b ) We will defer, to the maximum extent possible, to the Indian landowners' determination that the amendment is in their best interest.
( c ) We may not unreasonably withhold approval of an amendment.