alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012138EN.01001602.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Egan and Hackett v Parliament

(Case T-190/10) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001)

(2012/C 138/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Kathleen Egan (Athboy, Ireland) and Margaret Hackett (Borris-in-Ossory, Ireland) (represented by: K. Neary, Solicitor, C. MacEochaidh, SC, and J. Goode, Barrister)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and D. Moore, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented initially by H. Kranenborg and H. Hijmans, and subsequently by H. Kranenborg and I. Chatelier, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 12 February 2010 in so far as it refuses to grant the applicants the access sought to the public registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 12 February 2010 in so far as it refuses to grant Kathleen Egan and Margaret Hackett the access requested to the public registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 12 February 2010 in so far as it refuses to grant Kathleen Egan and Margaret Hackett the access requested to the public registers of assistants to former members of the European Parliament;

| 2. | Orders the Parliament to pay the costs incurred by Mrs Egan and Mrs Hackett and to refund to the Court cashier the sums advanced by way of legal aid granted to Mrs Egan; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Parliament to pay the costs incurred by Mrs Egan and Mrs Hackett and to refund to the Court cashier the sums advanced by way of legal aid granted to Mrs Egan;

| 3. | Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

---
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States

Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.






















18

This Page

Intentionally

Left Blank
Exhibit 32.1

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Foamex  International  Inc. on Form
10-K for the  period  ended  January 1, 2006 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Thomas E. Chorman,
President and Chief Executive  Officer of Foamex  International  Inc.,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   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 Foamex
     International Inc.


/s/ Thomas E. Chorman
-------------------------------------
Thomas E. Chorman
President and Chief Executive Officer
April 3, 2006
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201800084

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

ANTHONY M. JONES

Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major Terrance J. Reese, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, 1st Battalion, 10th Marine 

Regiment, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejuene, NC.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Colonel Keith 

A. Parrella, USMC.

For Appellant: Major David A. Peters, USMCR.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 21 June 2018

_________________________

Before HUTCHISON, SAYEGH, and ELLINGTON, Appellate Military 

Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

 For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date:  January 23, 2007 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                         
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|                        | Marc N. Teal,
Principal Financial Officer
# C_2006326EN.01001501.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany)) — Turbon International GmbH, as universal successor in title to Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz

(Case C-250/05) (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature of ink cartridges compatible with Epson Stylus Color printers - Inks (heading 3215) - Parts and accessories of machines of heading 8471 (heading 8473)

(2006/C 326/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Turbon International GmbH, as universal successor in title to Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hessisches Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Hesse), Kassel — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p.1) — Subheading No 3215 90 80 (‘Ink, other than printing ink, writing or drawing ink’) and Heading No 8473 (‘Parts and accessories of the machines of heading No 8471’, that is automatic data-processing machines and units thereof) — Ink cartridge

Operative part of the judgment

Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that an ink cartridge without an integrated print head consisting of plastic casing, foam, a metal screen, seals, tape seal, labels, ink and packing material, which, as regards both the cartridge and the ink, can only be used in a printer with the same characteristics as Epson Stylus Color inkjet printers, must be classified under Subheading 3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.

1

---
### §4903. Authorization of personnel end strengths

(a) For each fiscal year, Congress shall authorize the strength for active duty personnel of the Coast Guard as of the end of that fiscal year. Amounts may be appropriated for a fiscal year to or for the use of active duty personnel of the Coast Guard only if the end strength for active duty personnel for that fiscal year has been authorized by law. If at the end of any fiscal year there is in effect a declaration of war or national emergency, the President may defer the effectiveness of any end-strength limitation with respect to that fiscal year prescribed by law for any military or civilian component of the Coast Guard, for a period not to exceed 6 months after the end of the war or termination of the national emergency.

(b)(1) Congress shall authorize the average military training student loads for the Coast Guard for each fiscal year. That authorization is required for student loads for the following individual training categories:

(A) Recruit and specialized training.

(B) Flight training.

(C) Professional training in military and civilian institutions.

(D) Officer acquisition training.

(2) Amounts may be appropriated for a fiscal year for use in training military personnel of the Coast Guard in the categories referred to in paragraph (1) only if the average student loads for the Coast Guard for that fiscal year have been authorized by law.

(Added Pub. L. 97–295, §2(20)(A), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1302, §661; amended Pub. L. 107–295, title I, §105(a), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2085; renumbered §2703, Pub. L. 114–120, title I, §101(c), Feb. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 31; renumbered §4903, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §121(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4238.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 661 | 14:ch. 11(note). | Sept. 10, 1976, Pub. L. 94–406, §6, 90 Stat. 1236. |

The words "after fiscal year 1977" are omitted as executed. The word "Amounts" is substituted for "funds" for clarity and consistency.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 2703 of this title as this section.

2016—Pub. L. 114–120 renumbered section 661 of this title as this section.

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–295 inserted at end "If at the end of any fiscal year there is in effect a declaration of war or national emergency, the President may defer the effectiveness of any end-strength limitation with respect to that fiscal year prescribed by law for any military or civilian component of the Coast Guard, for a period not to exceed 6 months after the end of the war or termination of the national emergency."
**PRC Summary Response to GAO Report GAO-15-756:**

**U.S. Postal Service Actions Needed to Make Delivery Performance Information More Complete, Useful, and Transparent**

The GAO report made two recommendations to the Commission: **1**) hold a public proceeding to address how the Postal Service can improve the completeness of its delivery performance information; and **2**) provide more readily available data and additional analysis of the Postal Service’s delivery performance information. 

· The Commission adopts both recommendations as follows: 

**1**) The Commission is committed to initiating a public proceeding within 90 days of the GAO report’s issuance to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to consider matters raised in the report. 

**2**) The Commission’s website has been updated to provide stakeholders with direct and comprehensive access to service performance reports and dockets. *See* “Reports/Data Service Reports” at www.prc.gov.

**“Delivery Performance Information Has Expanded but Remains Incomplete, and PRC Has Not Fully Accessed Causes of Incomplete Data or the Effectiveness of USPS Actions.”**

· The Commission disagrees with the GAO report over the significance of data “completeness” and notes that the GAO definition of the percentage of mail measured is not a meaningful statistical measure. 

· The Commission has assessed the primary reason measured mail may be inaccurate, unreliable, or not representative of nationwide performance. These reasons include: low participation in full-service IMb, uncategorized mail, invalid data, and low district level volumes. Under the Commission’s oversight, the Postal Service has been improving in each of these areas.

· The Commission has regularly issued directives to the Postal Service to improve data quality by increasing full-service IMb participation, increasing measured volumes for mail product categories in districts where volume measured was insufficient, and increasing the number of districts providing results.  As a result, the Commission has seen clear evidence that the quality of the Postal Service’s service performance data is and has been improving.

**“Reported Delivery Performance Information Is Not Sufficiently Useful or Transparent for Oversight of Delivery Performance in all Areas.”**

· Commission reports are consistent with the requirements of current law.  These reports include validated area- and district-level data to: (1) analyze geographic effects of storms; (2) identify districts that routinely report lower than average service performance scores; and (3) compare regional versus nationwide results. Moreover, the Commission is working with Congress to explore the ability of the Postal Service to isolate rural service performance data.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,953
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,119
<INVENTORY>                                     27,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         535,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,172,401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        787,036
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           564
<OTHER-SE>                                     295,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,172,401
<SALES>                                         60,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,624
<CGS>                                           40,631
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,472
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,978
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,340
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,366
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,974
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,974
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16


</TABLE>
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 5:05 PM 

To: tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@LVMetals.com; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; gbf1@pge.com; 

adelaski@standardsASAP.org; rroy@nrdc.org; snadel@aceee.org; rgreeson@federalpacific.com; 

john.caskey@nema.org; dave.millure@metglas.com; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; 

paul.ryan@hitmet.com; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; Robert Berman; Creevy, Jim; Raba, Jim; Brian 

Coffey; Chris Bolduc; mark.e.stoering@xcel.energy.com; Freeman, Jeremiah (CONTR); Caitlin Johnson 

Subject: Low-Voltage Transformer Negotiated Rulemaking: Announcing List of Members and First 

Meeting (Sept. 28) 

Greetings, 

Attached are the committee members and alternates for the low-voltage transformer negotiated 

rulemaking committee (hereafter "LV Committee") based on the nominations that came in in 

response to the Federal Register notice. There may be one or two more coming aboard early 

next week, but this is the list as it stands now. Several commenters pointed out the need for 

representation by building associations and other consumers of LV transformers. Unfortunately, 

none of them stepped forward in response to the notice. We will work to make sure that various 

"consumer" groups who may not have found it in their interest to serve as full-fledged voting 

members are nonetheless encouraged to attend and present at one or more meetings so that their 

perspective is reflected in our deliberations. 

The first meeting of this group will be held in DC (DOE ) on Sept. 28 from 9 am to 5 pm. 

Thereafter the Medium-voltage and low-voltage committees will meet on adjacent dates. We are 

working on finalizing October dates, still constrained by meeting room availability, but will get 

those to you as soon as possible. 

I look forward to working with you. 

Best wishes, 

Richard Parker
# C_2007129EN.01002502.xml

| 9.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/25

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Bracke v Commission

(Case F-123/05) (1)

1

(Officials - Competitions - Internal competition - Eligibility conditions - Competition notice - Seniority requirement - Temporary staff - Article 27 of the Staff Regulations - Principle of sound administration - Principle of non-discrimination)

(2007/C 129/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marc Bracke (Etterbeeck, Belgium) (represented by: P. Bruwier, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios)

Defendant:

Re:

First, the inapplicability, under article 241 EC, of point III.1 of the notice of competition COM/PC/04 on account of infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, and, second, annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority not to recruit the applicant, and of the measures taken in consequence of that decision, on the grounds that it infringes Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of sound administration, the principle of independence of the selection board, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, and that it is founded on an illegal provision of the notice.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 53.

1

---
#### Robert Fiorelli, Appellant, v Leah Fiorelli, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 695]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered April 11, 2005 in a divorce action. The judgment, inter alia, awarded the parties joint custody of their daughter.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the provision with respect to alternate year decision-making authority and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Although we recognize that an award of joint custody is reserved for “relatively stable, amicable parents behaving in mature civilized fashion” *(Braiman v Braiman,*44 NY2d 584, 589-590 [1978]), we nevertheless conclude that Supreme Court properly granted the parties joint custody of their daughter in this contested custody matter. The record establishes that, with professional guidance, the parties established a joint custodial arrangement during the pendency of the matrimonial action. Both parties have shown that they are capable of placing the well-being of their daughter above *1217their own needs. “[T]he final consideration for the court ultimately remains the best interests of the child” *(Matter of Ammann v Ammann,*209 AD2d 1032, 1033 [1994]) and, here, it is in the best interests of the parties’ daughter that the joint arrangement continue, despite the fact that each party sought sole custody. However, the provision that, in the event the parties are unable to agree on issues concerning their daughter, decision-making authority be given to one parent in even-numbered years and the other parent in odd-numbered years is both arbitrary and contrary to the concept of joint parental decision-making and must be vacated. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Present—Kehoe, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.