alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 23
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 23 appear at 79 FR 27190, May 13, 2014.

§ 23.53 Cancellation. ( a ) The grants officer may cancel any grant, in whole or in part, at any time before the date of completion whenever it is determined that the grantee has: ( 1 ) Materially failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant;
( 2 ) Violated the rights as specified in § 23.49 or endangered the health, safety, or welfare of any person; or
( 3 ) Been grossly negligent in, or has mismanaged the handling or use of funds provided under the grant.
( b ) When it appears that cancellation of the grant will become necessary, the grants officer shall promptly notify the grantee in writing of this possibility. This written notice shall advise the grantee of the reason for the possible cancellation and the corrective action necessary to avoid cancellation. The grants officer shall also offer, and shall provide, if requested by the grantee, any technical assistance which may be required to effect the corrective action. The grantee shall have 60 days in which to effect this corrective action before the grants officer provides notice of intent to cancel the grant as provided for in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) Upon deciding to cancel for cause, the grants officer shall promptly notify the grantee in writing of that decision, the reason for the cancellation, and the effective date. The Regional Director or his/her designated official shall also provide a hearing for the grantee before cancellation. However, the grants officer may immediately cancel the grant, upon notice to the grantee, if the grants officer determines that continuance of the grant poses an immediate threat to safety. In this event, the Regional Director or his/her designated official shall provide a hearing for the grantee within 10 days of the cancellation.
( d ) The hearing referred to in paragraph (c) of this section shall be conducted as follows: ( 1 ) The grantee affected shall be notified, in writing, at least 10 days before the hearing. The notice should give the date, time, place, and purpose of the hearing.
( 2 ) A written record of the hearing shall be made. The record shall include written statements submitted at the hearing or within five days following the hearing.
<PAGE>   1

                                  Exhibit 23.1

            Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-74720, 33-80852, 333-09095, 333-44667, 333-44669, 333-36639,
33-92900, 333-00500, 333-36645 and 333-84199) pertaining to the 1989 Stock
Plan, 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1993 Employee Stock Bonus Plan, 1994
Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, 1997 Equity Incentive Plan and 1997
Non-Officer Equity Incentive Plan of Axys Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report
dated February 18, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of Axys Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1999.


                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Palo Alto, California
March 7, 2000
HB-2-3550

____________________________________________________________________________________________

ACE Active Corps of Executives 

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COLA Cost of Living Adjustment 

CFPB Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COR Contracting Officer Representative

DLOS Dedicated Loan Origination and Servicing System 

DOJ Department of Justice

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ECOA Equal Credit Opportunity Act 

EIR Equivalent Interest Rate

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHA Federal Housing Administration

FCP Farm Credit Program

FP Farmer Program

ACRONYMS USED IN THIS HANDBOOK

Acronyms, Page 1 of 3 

(12-23-96) SPECIAL PN

Revised (03-31-21) SPECIAL PN
HB-2-3550

____________________________________________________________________________________________

FSA Farm Service Agency

HB Handbook 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

IRA Individual Retirement Account

IRS Internal Revenue Service

NAD National Appeals Division

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program 

OGC Office of General Counsel

OIG Office of Inspector General

PI Principal and Interest

PITI Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance 

PRAS Principal Reduction Attributable to Subsidy

RD Rural Development 

REO Real Estate Owned

RESPA Real Estate and Settlement Procedures Act

RHS Rural Housing Service 

SCORE Service Corps of Retired Executives 

SCRA Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003

Servicing Servicing and Asset Management Office

Office

Acronyms, Page 2 of 3 
HB-2-3550

SF Standard Form 

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area

SFH Single Family Housing 

TDD Telecommunication Device for the Deaf

TSQ Transaction Screen Questionnaire

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA The United States Department of Agriculture

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

VISTA Volunteers in Service to America

______________________________________________________________

Glossary, Page 3 of 3

(12-23-96) SPECIAL PN

Revised (03-31-21) SPECIAL PN

______________________________
# C_2010209EN.01002301.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/23

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Miguel Remy v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)

(Case C-237/10)

()

2010/C 209/30

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Miguel Remy

Applicant:

Defendant: Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) to be interpreted as applying to a termination of activities as a result of a declaration that the employer is insolvent or a judicial decision ordering the dissolution and winding-up, on grounds of insolvency, of the credit institution which is the employer on the basis of Article 61(l)(a) and (b) of the amended Law of 5 April 1993 relating to the financial sector, in respect of which termination the national legislation provides for the termination of employment contracts with immediate effect? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) to be interpreted as applying to a termination of activities as a result of a declaration that the employer is insolvent or a judicial decision ordering the dissolution and winding-up, on grounds of insolvency, of the credit institution which is the employer on the basis of Article 61(l)(a) and (b) of the amended Law of 5 April 1993 relating to the financial sector, in respect of which termination the national legislation provides for the termination of employment contracts with immediate effect?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 98/59/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the administrator or liquidator is to be deemed to be in the same position as an employer who is contemplating collective redundancies and who is capable of carrying out, to that end, the acts referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 98/53/EC and of effecting such redundancies (judgment in Case C-323/08, paragraphs 39, 40 and 41)? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 98/59/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the administrator or liquidator is to be deemed to be in the same position as an employer who is contemplating collective redundancies and who is capable of carrying out, to that end, the acts referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 98/53/EC and of effecting such redundancies (judgment in Case C-323/08, paragraphs 39, 40 and 41)? (2)

2

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

1

(2)  Judgment of 10 December 2009 in Case C-323/08 Rodríguez Mayor and Others

2

Rodríguez Mayor and Others

---
# C_2011013EN.01002103.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 27 October 2010 — Giovanni Colapietro v Ispettorato Centrale Repressioni Frodi

(Case C-519/10)

()

2011/C 13/40

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Bari

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Giovanni Colapietro

Applicant:

Defendant: Ispettorato Centrale Repressioni Frodi

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | What is the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, (1) that is to say, its spatial and temporal application, and the purpose thereof as regards penalties, with respect to the 1993/94 wine year, the period to which the case at issue relates? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, (1) that is to say, its spatial and temporal application, and the purpose thereof as regards penalties, with respect to the 1993/94 wine year, the period to which the case at issue relates?

1

| 2. | Is it true that Article 39 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 was implemented, in respect of the 1993/94 wine year, by Regulation (EEC) No 343/94 (2) of 15 February 1994 and replaced with that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it true that Article 39 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 was implemented, in respect of the 1993/94 wine year, by Regulation (EEC) No 343/94 (2) of 15 February 1994 and replaced with that regulation?

2

| 3. | Is the application of the fine of LIT 390 250 000 (now EUR 201 547,30 — two hundred and one thousand five hundred and forty seven point 30 euros) for failure to deliver for compulsory distillation — in respect of the 1993/94 wine year — 7 084,87 hl of table wine, that volume having been calculated by applying the compulsory distillation quota to the lees produced (15 155 hl) (the yield being 126 hl/ha and the compulsory distillation quota being 51.5 %, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 610/94) (3) disproportionate in effect to the offences and in breach of the principle of fair punishment, which has been set out many times by the Court of Justice? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the application of the fine of LIT 390 250 000 (now EUR 201 547,30 — two hundred and one thousand five hundred and forty seven point 30 euros) for failure to deliver for compulsory distillation — in respect of the 1993/94 wine year — 7 084,87 hl of table wine, that volume having been calculated by applying the compulsory distillation quota to the lees produced (15 155 hl) (the yield being 126 hl/ha and the compulsory distillation quota being 51.5 %, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 610/94) (3) disproportionate in effect to the offences and in breach of the principle of fair punishment, which has been set out many times by the Court of Justice?

3

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 84, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 1987 L 44, p. 9.

2

(3)  OJ 1994 L 77, p. 12.

3

---
# C_2011089EN.01000802.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/8

---

Appeal brought on 23 December 2010 by Dieter C. Umbach against the judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 October 2010 in Case T-474/08 Dieter C. Umbach v European Commission

(Case C-609/10 P)

2011/C 89/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Dieter C. Umbach (represented by: M. Stephani, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 21 October 2010 in Case T-474/08 Umbach v European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of 21 October 2010 in Case T-474/08 Umbach v European Commission.

Umbach

European Commission

| — | Annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 2 September 2008, reference: SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2008) 6991. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 2 September 2008, reference: SG.E.3/MV/psi D(2008) 6991.

| — | Order that the European Commission pay the costs of the case at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the European Commission pay the costs of the case at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his appeal, Mr Umbach appeals the decision of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 October 2010 in Case T-474/08 and seeks the setting aside of that judgment, by which he was refused full access to documents connected with a TACIS contract which concern him.

The appellant is of the opinion that on the basis of obligations under primary law, in particular Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, direct access to documents which affect him must be permitted, in particular where a claim for payment is brought against him by the European Commission before a Member State court and he requires access to documents of the European Commission for the purposes of defending those proceedings.

The European Commission on the other hand contends that only Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is applicable and that it is thereby entitled to grant only limited access or to refuse such access.

With regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the appellant claims that, to the extent that that regulation is applicable, the European Commission’s discretion concerning his fundamental rights is limited, leading to the same result under secondary law as is reached under the primary provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights referred to.

---
#### § 151.1 Definitions.

Words used in this part in the singular form shall be deemed to import the plural, and vice versa, as the case may demand. As used in this part, the following words, names, or terms shall have the meanings set forth in this section, unless otherwise clearly indicated by the context.

*The Act.* Item 100.01 in part 1, schedule 1, of title I of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1202, schedule 1, part 1, item 100.01).

*Administrator.* The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or any person authorized to act for the Administrator.

*Agent.* Custom broker or other person authorized to act as agent for the importer or owner of an animal.

*Animal.* Any purebred animal imported specially for breeding purposes except a black, silver, or platinum fox, or any fox which is a mutation or type developed therefrom.

*Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (APHIS).

*Book of record.* A printed book or an approved microfilm record sponsored by a registry association and containing breeding data relative to a large number of registered purebred animals used as a basis for the issuance of pedigree certificates.

*Certificates of pure breeding.* A certificate issued by the Administrator, for Bureau of Customs use only, certifying that the animal to which the certificate refers is a purebred animal of a recognized breed and duly registered in a book of record recognized under the regulations in this part for that breed.

*Department.* The United States Department of Agriculture.

*Inspector.* An inspector of APHIS or of the Bureau of Customs of the United States Treasury Department authorized to perform functions under the regulations in this part.

*Pedigree certificate.* A document issued by a registry association giving the pedigree of an animal and certifying that it is registered in the book of record of the association issuing the document, and containing all pertinent information relating to the registered animal, such as color and natural and artificial markings, a record of the name and address of the breeder, and the name and address of each subsequent owner of the animal.

*Port of entry.* Any port designated under § 92.102 for birds, § 92.203 for poultry, § 92.303 for horses, § 92.403 for ruminants, or § 92.503 for swine of this chapter.

*Purebred.* A term applicable to animals which are the progeny of known and registered ancestors of the same recognized breed and for which at least three generations of ancestry can be traced: *Provided, however,* That in the case of sheep registered on the basis of flocks, the term is applicable to animals of a recognized breed which originate in a flock for which available breeding data, as shown in the registry association's records, establish that the flock has been in existence at least ten years.

[23 FR 10103, Dec. 23, 1958, as amended at 24 FR 2643, Apr. 7, 1959; 26 FR 6072, July 7, 1961; 36 FR 23356, Dec. 9, 1971; 54 FR 34969, 34970, Aug. 23, 1989; 55 FR 31562, Aug. 2, 1990]
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 11 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

TINA YERBY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

a Delaware corporation; MIKE

EBERT, an individual,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-7113

(D.C. No. 96-CV-639-B)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, BARRETT, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Plaintiff Tina Yerby, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s grant

of summary judgment in favor of defendants on her claim for violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213; for

retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981; and her state law workers’ compensation retaliatory discharge claim.

We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs on appeal, the district

court’s order, and the entire record before this court. Based upon that review,

we conclude that the district court committed no reversible error and AFFIRM

for substantially those reasons set forth by the district court.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge
# C_2007042EN.01002301.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/23

---

Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Bateaux Mouches v OHIM — Castanet (Bateaux Mouches)

(Case T-365/06)

(2007/C 42/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: SA Compagnie des Bateaux Mouches (Paris, France) (represented by: D. de Leusse, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jean-Noël Castanet (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | Declare the action by Compagnie des Bateaux Mouches admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the action by Compagnie des Bateaux Mouches admissible;

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1172/2005-1, Castanet v Compagnie des Bateaux Mouches); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1172/2005-1, Castanet v Compagnie des Bateaux Mouches);

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘Bateaux Mouches’ for services in Classes 39, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 336 122

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Jean-Noël Castanet

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: rejection of the application for cancellation

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) on the grounds that the contested decision wrongly held the applicant's trade mark to be descriptive and without distinctive character and inasmuch as it held that the applicant had not proved that its trade mark had acquired by usage a distinctive character for the services concerned.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
H. Res. 555

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 19, 2000.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.

4118) to prohibit the rescheduling or forgiveness of any outstanding bilateral debt owed to the United States by the Government of the Russian Federation until the President certifies to the Congress that the Government of the Russian

Federation has ceased all its operations at, removed all personnel from, and permanently closed the intelligence facility

at Lourdes, Cuba. The bill shall be considered as read for

amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee

on International Relations now printed in the bill shall be

considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended,

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on International Relations; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed
2

•HRES 555 EH

in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule

XVIII, if offered by Representative Gejdenson of Connecticut

or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall

be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.