alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010301EN.01001002.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2010 — Galina Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH

(Case C-415/10)

()

2010/C 301/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Galina Meister

Applicant:

Defendant: Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (1) and Article 8(1) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2) and Article 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3) to be interpreted as meaning that, where a worker shows that he meets the requirements for a post advertised by an employer, he has a right vis-à-vis that employer, if he does not obtain the post, to information as to whether the employer has engaged another applicant and, if so, as to the criteria on the basis of which that appointment has been made? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (1) and Article 8(1) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2) and Article 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3) to be interpreted as meaning that, where a worker shows that he meets the requirements for a post advertised by an employer, he has a right vis-à-vis that employer, if he does not obtain the post, to information as to whether the employer has engaged another applicant and, if so, as to the criteria on the basis of which that appointment has been made?

1

2

3

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is affirmative:
  Where the employer does not disclose the requested information, does that fact give rise to a presumption that the discrimination alleged by the worker exists? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is affirmative:

Where the employer does not disclose the requested information, does that fact give rise to a presumption that the discrimination alleged by the worker exists?

---

(1)  OJ L 204, p. 23.

1

(2)  OJ L 180, p. 22.

2

(3)  OJ L 303, p. 16.

3

---
# C_2006331EN.01005002.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/50

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 December 2006 — Pantalis v Commission

(Case F-88/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 331/112)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register further to an amicable settlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 44.

1

---
### §1963a. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, §7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379

Section, Pub. L. 92–513, title III, §311, as added Pub. L. 93–492, title III, §301(a)(4) Oct. 27, 1974, 88 Stat. 1485; amended Pub. L. 94–364, title III, §302, July 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 982, directed Secretary to establish special motor vehicle diagnostic inspection demonstration project.
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 0572-0107. The time required to complete this

 information is estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

 maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Utilities Service

PAGE OF PAGES

MATERIALS RECEIPT

DATE

Instructions: Prepare three (3) copies. Forward original to Owner, one copy to Contractor and one copy to

Engineer.

MANUFACTURER UNIT EXTENDED ITEM* QUANTITY DESCRIPTION OF ITEM AND CATALOG COST COST NUMBER

TOTAL

RECEIVED BY FOR

CONTRACTOR

OWNER

* Item corresponds with item in list of materials in construction drawings.

RUS Form 251 (Rev. 2-95)

Instructions

Instructions

- -
# C_2011331EN.01002001.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar (BRIGHTON)

(Case T-403/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark ‘BRIGHTON’ - National word and figurative marks ‘BRIGHTON’ and earlier signs ‘BRIGHTON’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2011/C 331/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Brighton Collectibles, Inc. (Dover, Delaware, USA) (represented by: R. Delorey, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Felmar (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Monégier du Sorbier, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 408/2009-4) concerning an opposition procedure between Brighton Collectibles Inc. and Felmar.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Brighton Collectibles Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brighton Collectibles Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

| 3. | Orders Felmar to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Felmar to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

1

---
| **RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS (Details Textual)** | 6 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| Percentage Of Annual Management Fee              | 0.375%         |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
The percentage of annual management fee.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**bctc_PercentageOfAnnualManagementFee**Namespace Prefix:**bctc_**Data Type:**num:percentItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
# C_2011072EN.01000801.xml

| 5.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 December 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: P. Mook

(Case C-579/10)

2011/C 72/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Appellant:

Other party: P. Mook

Other party:

Question referred

Question referred

In the light of Article 18 EC (now Article 21 TFEU), does Community law govern a situation in which a Member State levies a tax on the first use on the road network in its territory of a vehicle which is registered in another Member State, has been borrowed from a resident of that other Member State and has been driven for private purposes by a resident of the first Member State between those two Member States?

---
# C_2013071EN.01002002.xml

| 9.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/20

---

Order of the General Court of 14 January 2013 — Divandari v Council

(Case T-497/10) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 71/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ali Divandari (Teheran, Iran) (represented: initially by S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by R. Blakeley, S. Zaiwalla, F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, and M. Brindle QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) in so far as those measures concern the applicant

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Ali Divandari. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Ali Divandari.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

1

---
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 7/29/15

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with R4 State and Local Air Directors

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at Metro4 SESARM 

Spring meeting in Atlanta, GA, on May 20, 2015. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power 

Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Ken Mitchell/EPA R4

Beverly Banister/EPA R4

Other Region 4 Air Program Management and Staff

External Stakeholders

John Hornback/Metro4 SESARM

Approximately 50 Region 4 State and Local Air Directors and Staff

ATTACHMENT
- English
                  - Spanish

## What is the Community Connect Grants Program?

The purpose of the Community Connect Program is to provide financial assistance in the form of grants to eligible applicants that will provide, on a “community -oriented connectivity” basis, broadband service that fosters economic growth and delivers enhanced educational, health care, and public safety benefits.

The Application Window is currently CLOSED.
Funding Opportunity AnnouncementProgram OverviewFactsheetCorrection Notice Fact SheetSubscribe to UpdatesPublic Notice FilingsMapping ToolApplication
Contact your local General Field Representative for more information.

## Program Benefits

The Community Connect Program helps rural communities extend access where broadband service is least likely to be commercially available, but where it can make a tremendous difference in the quality of life for people and businesses. The projects funded by these grants help rural residents tap into the enormous potential of the Internet for jobs, education, healthcare, public safety, and community development.

More than

Since FY 2013

More than

Since FY 2013

Assisting over

Since FY 2013

Wednesday, October 7, 2020

Register to Attend Our Next Webinar

Register Now
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1418 Engrossed Amendment House (EAH)]

  1st Session

                                S. 1418

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 17, 1999.

    Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1418) entitled ``An Act to 
provide for the holding of court at Natchez, Mississippi, in the same manner as 
court is held at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and for other purposes'', do pass with 
the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. HOLDING OF COURT AT NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI.

    Section 104(b)(3) of title 28, United States Code, is amended in 
the second sentence by striking all beginning with the colon through 
``United States''.

SEC. 2. HOLDING OF COURT AT WHEATON, ILLINOIS.

    Section 93(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
adding after Chicago ``and Wheaton''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 570 

To conduct or support further comprehensive research for the creation of 

a universal influenza vaccine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2019 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. KING, Mr. 

VAN HOLLEN, Ms. SMITH, and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To conduct or support further comprehensive research for 

the creation of a universal influenza vaccine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flu Vaccine Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. RESEARCH FOR THE CREATION OF A UNIVERSAL 

6 INFLUENZA VACCINE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National In8 stitute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases shall conduct or 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 570 IS

1 support comprehensive research for the creation of a uni2 versal influenza vaccine. 

3 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—To carry 

4 out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated 

5 $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
§ 81.5 Movement of deer, elk, or moose through a State to another State. Farmed or captive deer, elk, or moose may be moved through a State or locality whose laws or regulations on the movement of those animals are more restrictive than this part to another State under the following conditions: ( a ) The farmed or captive deer, elk, or moose must be eligible to move interstate under § 81.3.
( b ) The farmed or captive deer, elk, or moose must meet the entry requirements of the destination State listed on the certificate or permit accompanying the animal.
( c ) Except in emergencies, the farmed or captive deer, elk, or moose must not be unloaded until their arrival at their destination.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> CT
<CIK> 0000835095
<NAME> BOSTON CAPITAL TAX CREDIT FUND I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,732,628
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,732,628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   851
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (587,325)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (586,474)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1325

To amend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to add Hickman, Lawrence, Lewis, Perry, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee, to the

Appalachian region.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 1, 1999

Mr. FRIST introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of

1965 to add Hickman, Lawrence, Lewis, Perry, and

Wayne Counties, Tennessee, to the Appalachian region.

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONS TO APPALACHIAN REGION.

4 Section 403 of the Appalachian Regional Develop5 ment Act of 1965 (40 U.S.C. App.) is amended in the

6 undesignated paragraph relating to Tennessee—

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘Hickman,’’ after ‘‘Hawkins,’’;

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘Lawrence, Lewis,’’ after

9 ‘‘Knox,’’;
2

•S 1325 IS

1 (3) by inserting ‘‘Perry,’’ after ‘‘Overton,’’; and

2 (4) by inserting ‘‘Wayne,’’ after ‘‘Washington,’’.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 1 48 DB 2022 (No. 2 RST 2023)

:

THERESA DE JESUS ORDONEZ : Attorney Registration No. 50055

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

FROM INACTIVE STATUS : ( Out of State )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12 th day of January, 202 3 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinar y Board Member date d December 29, 2022

, is approved and it is ORDERED

that THERESA DE JESUS ORDONEZ

, who has been on Inactive Status

, h as

demonstrated that s he has the moral qualifications, competency

, and learning in law

required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby

reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses

incurred by the Board in t he investigation and processing of this matter shall be paid by

the Petitioner

.
### §2223c. Report and recommendations

The working group established under section 2223b of this title shall, within 1 year after October 22, 1990, submit a report to the Administrator and to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate presenting the results of the review carried out under sections 2223a to 2223e of this title, along with recommendations to ensure that response information disseminated to emergency response personnel is appropriate for operational personnel at the local level.

(Pub. L. 101–446, §4, Oct. 22, 1990, 104 Stat. 1045.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Firefighters' Safety Study Act, and not as part of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.
# C_2007129EN.01001701.xml

| 9.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/17

---

Action brought on 26 March 2007 — Dada v OHIM — Dada (DADA)

(Case T-101/07)

(2007/C 129/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Dada SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Locurto, lawyers)

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: Dada Srl

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

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2007 in Case R-1342/2005-1, notified to Dada SpA on 25 June 2007, and consequently allow application for registration No 1 903 111 lodged by Dada SpA also in respect of the services referred to in Class 42 of the Nice Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2007 in Case R-1342/2005-1, notified to Dada SpA on 25 June 2007, and consequently allow application for registration No 1 903 111 lodged by Dada SpA also in respect of the services referred to in Class 42 of the Nice Agreement;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dada SpA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark composed of the word DADA reproduced in capital letters on a rectangular black background surmounted by the image of an atom; registration No 1 903 111 in respect of services in Class 42.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: DADA Srl

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian descriptive mark DADA, in respect of services in Classes 35, 37, 38 and 42, and the company name DADA, used in trade and commerce in Italy to denote the following activities: ‘business management; business administration; office functions, real-estate affairs, telecommunications, education, training, legal services, computer programming’.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and refusal of the application for registration for the services at issue.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision upheld and dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Insufficient evidence of use of the national mark pleaded by the opponent and absence of likelihood of confusion.

Pleas in law:

---