alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012355EN.01002403.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-257/10) (1)

1

(State aid - Undertaking with subsidiaries in certain third countries - Reduced rate loans - Decision declaring aid incompatible in part with the internal market and ordering it to be repaid - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the same procedure - Force of res judicata - Duty to state reasons)

2012/C 355/52

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili and M. Fiorilli, avvocati dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 concerning State aid C 4/03 (ex NN 102/02) implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

1

---
#### § 319.304 Meat stews.

Meat stews such as “Beef Stew” or “Lamb Stew” shall contain not less than 25 percent of meat of the species named on the label, computed on the weight of the fresh meat. Mechanically Separated (Species) may be used in accordance with § 319.6.

[35 FR 15597, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 43 FR 26425, June 20, 1978; 47 FR 28257, June 29, 1982]
#### § 93.512 Quarantine stations, visiting restricted; sales prohibited.

Visitors shall not be admitted to the quarantine enclosure during any time that swine are in quarantine except that an importer (or his or her accredited agent or veterinarian) may be admitted to the yards and buildings containing his or her quarantined swine at such intervals as may be deemed necessary, and under such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed, by the inspector in charge of the quarantine station. On the last day of the quarantine period, owners, officers or registry societies, and others having official business or whose services may be necessary in the removal of the swine may be admitted upon written permission from the said inspector. No exhibition or sale shall be allowed within the quarantine grounds.
OMB Control No. 0572-0149 

Expiration Date: 31, 2022

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond 

to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information 

collection is 0572-0149. The time required to complete this information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, includingthe

time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

CERTIFICATE OF SELLER 

AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT

, certifies that

he is the of TITLE OR DESIGNATION

NAME OF SELLER

, the Seller,

in a contract No. dated entered into between the 

Seller and , the Buyer, for the NAME OF RUS BUYER

furnishing, delivery, and installation of equipment and 

Materials (hereinafter called the Project), which bears the Rural Utilities Service Project

Designation:

: and that he is authorized to and does make 

this Certificate on behalf of the Seller in order to induce the Rural Utilities Service to advance 

moneys to the Buyer for the purpose of payment by the Buyer to the Seller and to induce the 

Buyer to make payment to the Seller, in accordance with the provisions of the Contract.

Undersigned further certifies that all persons who have furnished labor in connection 

with the Project have been paid in full; that all manufacturers, materialmen and subcontractors 

which furnished any materials or services, or both, for the Project have been paid in full; that no 

lien have been filed against the Project and no person has any right to claim any lien against the 

Project.

If the Buyer pays the Seller the total amount due under the Contract, which

the

Seller agrees is $ , including $ for 

taxes paid by the Seller, the Seller will indemnify and hold harmless and does hereby 

undertake and agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Buyer from any claim or lien arising 

out of the performance of theContract which may have been or may be filed against the 

Buyer.

DATE SIGNATURE OF SELLER

RUS FORM 395c (Issued )
**Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2011 – Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM**

**(Case C-56/10 P)**

Appeal – Community trade mark – Figurative marks 100 and 300 – Refusal of registration – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) – Distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 38(2) – Disclaimer of any exclusive right to a non-distinctive element of a trade mark applied for

1.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Overlapping
of the fields of application of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 29)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Effects of the Community trade mark – Limitations – Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94 – Purpose
– No decisive effect on the interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) and (c)) of that regulation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts
7(1)(c) and 12(b)) (see para. 58)*

3.                     *Community trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – OHIM’s
previous decision-making practice (see para. 65)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T‐425/07 and T‐426/07 | Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol | v | OHIM | , by which that court dismissed two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1274/2006-4 and R 1275/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the word marks 100 and 300 as Community trade marks – Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 38(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) – Descriptive character of marks composed exclusively of figures. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The appeal is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. is ordered to pay the costs. |
**Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — IDT Biologika v Commission**

**(Case T-503/10)**

Public supply contracts — Call for tenders — Supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines — Rejection of a submitted tender — Award of the contract to another tenderer

1.                     *EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review
— Limits (Council Regulation No 1605/2002; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) (see paras 19, 20)*

2.                     *EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Duty to comply with the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency
(Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 89(1) and 168) (see para. 51)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of the decision dated 10 August 2010 of the European Union delegation in the Republic of Serbia (OJ 2010/S 192-293332) awarding the contract in the call for tenders EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium directed by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders IDT Biologika GmbH to pay the costs. |
# C_2014202EN.01001702.xml

| 30.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Reagens v Commission

(Case T-30/10) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for tin heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Duration of the infringement - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Basic amount - Mitigating circumstances - Ability to pay - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction - Appropriateness of the amount of the fine))

2014/C 202/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Reagens SpA (San Giorgio di Piano, Italy) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, L. Toffoletti, E. De Giorgi and D. Gullo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Bourke, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Reagens SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Reagens SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
MF·:MORANDUM
 

To: I !tah. Unavoidabk~~:s,kdown)~l~JeFiJe

From: Laurie Ostrand.,.!7':0-"" (:r;.:".{ 

Date: September 9.20 10 

Rc: Utah August 2, 2006 Midyear Call 

As the air sta IT member then responsible for issues related to the Utah 

Unavoidable Breakdown Rule. I participated in Region 8's August 2, 2006 midyeur 

review call with the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). Rick Sprott, then head of 

UDi\Q. indicated that they were m a dead end with industry with respect to changing the 

ruJi.:· because industry felt !':PA was not bending with respect to the excess emissions 

policy. Rick indicated that he did not want to continue a process that had no hope. Rick 

was aware that Colorado W<IS in the process of revising its malfunction rule due to the 

citizens pdition. Rick indicated that he would be 1110re than happy to benefit from the 

Colorado process. Rick said that he would follow the Colorado process and if it 

concluded within the next .:+ months he would lead the effort to adopt a new rule in Utah 

that might be helpful. Rick also indicated that he recognized that important operators art: 

in both states. Finally, Rick also indicated that held like to get a rule revision done 

throug.h a cooperative process, but if that couldn't be done, EPA should do a SIP Call.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6356

DOMINIQUE VENCENTIN GRAY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOHNNY HAWKINS, Superintendent; RAY COOPER, Attorney General of the 

State of North Carolina,

 Respondents - Appellees.

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

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:16-hc-02142-BO)

Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dominique Vencentin Gray, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dominique Vencentin Gray seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 standard 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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gray has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, 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
# C_2012049EN.01002303.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/23

---

Order of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission

(Case T-202/10) (1)

1

(State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to housing corporations - Existing aid - Decision accepting Member State’s commitments - Action for annulment - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

2012/C 49/42

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Stichting Woonlinie (Woudrichem, Netherlands); Stichting Allee Wonen (Roosendaal, Netherlands); Woningstichting Volksbelang (Wijk bij Duurstede, Netherlands); Stichting WoonInvest (Leidschendam-Voorburg, Netherlands); and Stichting Woonstede (Ede, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener, E. Henny and T. Ottervanger, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, S. Noë and S. Thomas, Agents, and by H. Gilliams, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of Vesteda Groep BV, the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, the Société wallonne du logement, the Union sociale pour l’habitat and The European Liaison Committee for Social Housing (Cecodhas); |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of Vesteda Groep BV, the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, the Société wallonne du logement, the Union sociale pour l’habitat and The European Liaison Committee for Social Housing (Cecodhas);

| 3. | Stichting Woonlinie, Stichting Allee Wonen, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting WoonInvest and Stichting Woonstede are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Stichting Woonlinie, Stichting Allee Wonen, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting WoonInvest and Stichting Woonstede are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 4. | Vesteda Groep, the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, the Société wallonne du logement, the Union sociale pour l’habitat and Cecodhas, applicants for leave to intervene, are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Vesteda Groep, the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, the Société wallonne du logement, the Union sociale pour l’habitat and Cecodhas, applicants for leave to intervene, are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Actuate Corporation (the
Company) for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge on the date hereof, the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2007                                                                                     
|                                                                                                          
|/s/ Peter I. Cittadini                                                                                    
|Peter I. Cittadini                                                                                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)                                       
|                                                                                                          
|/s/ Daniel A. Gaudreau                                                                                    
|Daniel A. Gaudreau                                                                                        
|Senior Vice President, Operations and
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER APPROVING THE 

REVISION OF THE COMMENT

TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF 

EVIDENCE 902

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 741

SUPREME COURT RULES

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2017, upon the recommendation of the 

Committee on Rules of Evidence; the proposal having been published for public 

comment at 46 Pa.B. 3793 (July 16, 2016): 

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that the Comment to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 902 is revised in the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective November 1, 2017.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions to the rule are shown in bold and in brackets.
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 57 ) IV-E-5 2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 11:57:59 AM

Sheet 57 of 117P. 2 

# A-lo-a ^
Date : Apri l 14,200 0 To : Air

an d Radiatio n Docke

t #A-90-3 7 From : TomDriscoll , Integrate d Implementatio n Group ,

ITPID , MD-1 2 Subject : Meetin g wit

h Comple x Manufacturer s Grou

p \•—cpfv^'^j" - On March 10,2000 , th e EP A met wit h representative s o f

agrou p o f complex manufacturer s (attende e lis t i s attached) . The first

hal f o f th e discussio n focused primarily on th e clea n uni t tes t i n EPA' s Jul y 199 6 NS R Refor mrulemakin g proposal . Som e o f th e topic s covered include d th e time b y whic h technolog y mus t b e applied , th e duratio n o f th e exemptio n unde r th e test , case-by-cas e determination s fo r eligibilit y fo r th e exemption , and defining wha t kind s o f control s coul d qualif

y fo r th e clea n uni t exemption . Durin g th e second par t o f th e meeting , industr

y representative s presente d and defined wha t the y perceive d a s problem s unde r th e curren t NS R progra

mincludin g issue s associate d wit h wha t change s constitut

e aproject , change s tha

t debottlenec k

aprocess , and unit s whos e operation s are linked . Attachmen

t cc : Jo n Devine , OG

C Pa mSmit h (MD-12 ) ,M'-"-2 TP. 3 

# b Lr.

Crc Ih.bwt-s. .Low

:.:.T"\G.'oZA

4 .^2KO.n.cJL v G l <t)



## . : l 

## 'T°vvs . .Qr."\£.c&\Q..... . 

# •^rbc^.jP-t^e... "IAmm*VLC* OOlmflCS 

# V^Bi'l•..Z-r:^'l > &VX, 

### fc 

## TZffrl^cA- \...2<?Jtj.J ^ ^— rl



## - x 

## £> c 

## >- :& D 

## .&./oft£fa.m*i\'- 2- ^ $.(*,y zLb.b.M .-- . B^/.D^Q..R S 

## ^i^-^vv-c-^- ^ : 

## ...BfAlQMrs.:, S.3J * ^c6^^/^^/^ny^- ^-02/^37:^67 5 ..6£,.±:/9.fiF

._... . ..... . :?^r.*.^-*^> : 

# 'Zc-2m9-%^§£<ri-ttsz T-* V YV K

?£v y _^/ f -2.27-203 J 

## ..fkffer. C&tinht.

^
Together, America Prospers

Rural Decentralized Water Systems Grant Program

What does this 

program do? 

This program helps qualified 

nonprofits and tribes create a 

revolving loan fund to increase 

access to clean, reliable water 

and septic systems for households 

in eligible rural areas.

Who may apply 

for these grants? 

Nonprofits that have: 

• Expertise and experience

promoting the safe, productive

use of individually-owned

household water wells systems

• Legal authority to act as a lender

• Sufficient expertise and

experience in lending activities

• Financial, technical, and

managerial capacity to comply

with relevant federal and state

laws and regulations

How may grant funds be used? 

Grant funds may be used to help 

a nonprofit create a revolving loan 

fund for eligible individuals who own 

and occupy a home in an eligible 

rural area. The fund may be used 

to construct, refurbish, or service 

individually-owned household water 

well and septic systems. Terms for 

the loans include one percent fixed 

interest rate, 20-year maximum term, 

and an $15,000 maximum loan 

per household.

What is an eligible area? 

• Rural areas and towns with

populations of 50,000 or

less – check eligible addresses

• Tribal lands in rural areas

• Colonias

Are matching funds required 

for the grant? 

Yes. The nonprofit must contribute at 

least 10 percent. Matching funds may 

be from the nonprofit applicant or a 

third party and matching funds may 

not be in-kind. 

How do we get started? 

• Electronic applications are accepted

through Grants.gov.

• Paper applications may be sent

to Water Programs Division, Rural

Utilities Service, Stop: 1570, Room

2234-S, 1400 Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC 20250-1570.

Who can answer questions? 

Contact your local RD office.

What governs this program? 

• Code of Federal Regulations

7 CFR 1776

• Section 306E of the Consolidated

Farm and Rural Development Act

Why does USDA Rural Development 

do this? 

This program helps communities 

improve access to safe, reliable drinking 

water for households in rural areas. 

It also helps improve the sanitary 

conditions caused by inadequate 

septic systems.

NOTE: Because citations and other information may be subject to change, 

please always consult the program instructions listed in the section above 

titled “What Governs This Program?” You may also contact your local office for 

assistance. You will find additional forms, resources, and program information at 

www.rd.usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Last Updated September 2020