alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010195EN.01001501.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) lodged on 25 May 2010 — Försäkringskässan v Elisabeth Bergström

(Case C-257/10)

2010/C 195/22

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Försäkringskässan

Applicant:

Defendant: Elisabeth Bergström

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Under Union law, in particular the Agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of persons and Article 72 of Regulation No 1408/71, (1) can a qualification period for family benefit in the form of income-related benefit for childcare be completed in its entirety through employment and insurance in Switzerland? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Union law, in particular the Agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of persons and Article 72 of Regulation No 1408/71, (1) can a qualification period for family benefit in the form of income-related benefit for childcare be completed in its entirety through employment and insurance in Switzerland?

1

| 2. | Under Union law, in particular the Agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of persons and Articles 3(1) and 72 of Regulation No 1408/71, is income earned in Switzerland to be equated with domestic income in the determination of entitlement to family benefit in the form of income-related benefit for childcare? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Under Union law, in particular the Agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of persons and Articles 3(1) and 72 of Regulation No 1408/71, is income earned in Switzerland to be equated with domestic income in the determination of entitlement to family benefit in the form of income-related benefit for childcare?

---

(1)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.

1

---
#### § 381.82 [Reserved]
# C_2011030EN.01001601.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2010 — Finanzamt Hildesheim v BLC Baumarkt GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-511/10)

()

2011/C 30/25

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt Hildesheim

Appellant:

Respondent: BLC Baumarkt GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) to be interpreted as authorising the Member States to prescribe primarily an apportionment criterion other than the transaction formula for apportioning the input tax on the construction of a mixed-use building?

1

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Rural Development Announces Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program 

Eligibility Expansion and Administration Improvements

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16, 2018 – Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Anne Hazlett today 

announced a regulation improvement that will expand eligibility for and simplify the administration of the 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grant program. 

Under the rewritten regulation (7 CFR 1734), organizations holding USDA rural telecommunications or electric 

program loans are now eligible to apply for DLT grants. In addition, DLT grants can now be used to construct 

or improve broadband transmission facilities.

A newly streamlined process also makes this important program more customer-friendly by easing access to 

USDA announcements of funding and solicitations of applications. With these changes, USDA will be able to 

more broadly market the program and provide potential customers more time to apply for federal support of 

their rural e-connectivity projects. 

“These improvements to Rural Development’s Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program carry out 

Secretary Perdue’s Strategic Goal #1 – an efficient and effective, customer-focused USDA,” said Anne Hazlett, 

Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development. “With these reforms, we’re also making progress in 

expanding the health and education benefits of e-connectivity for rural communities.”

All program changes were effective Dec. 27, 2017. 

Regulatory reform is one of the cornerstones of USDA’s strategies for creating a culture of consistent, efficient 

service to customers, while reducing burdens and improving efficiency. This regulation improvement is one of 

14 regulations USDA Rural Development has identified for revision or elimination since Jan. 20, 2017. 

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.03


                           ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR
                         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 Annual Report of Alliance Semiconductor Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 29, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, N.
Damodar Reddy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations
           of the Company.

This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Report accompanying this
letter.




Date: June 27, 2003                             /s/ N. Damodar Reddy
      -------------                             --------------------------------
                                                N. Damodar Reddy
                                                Chairman of the Board, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2011145EN.01002701.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — CheckMobile v OHIM (carcheck)

(Case T-14/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ‘carcheck’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 145/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CheckMobile GmbH — The Process Solution Company (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Lodigkeit, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 (Case R 595/2009-4), relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign ‘carcheck’.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CheckMobile GmbH — The Process Solution Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CheckMobile GmbH — The Process Solution Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
## Browse All Stories

###  “This is Home” – A Family Finds Their Forever Home in Calais, Maine

[Read More]

04.05.2024

HomeownershipHousing

### USDA’s Housing Preservation Grant and Rebuilding Together Houston’s Network of Partners Improve Safety and Resiliency of Crosby Homeowner

[Read More]

04.02.2024

Housing

### A Move to Texas as 'House-Sitters' Results in First-Time Home Ownership 

[Read More]

03.28.2024

Housing

### Stretching Critical Home Repair Dollars

[Read More]

03.28.2024

Housing

### From Renter to Homeowner: Patrick's Path to Homeownership

[Read More]

03.06.2024

Housing

### USDA Helps Mustard Seed Village Cultivate Change: A Greenhouse Model Blossoming with Community Engagement and Elder Care Innovations

[Read More]

02.28.2024

Housing

### Lasting Legacy: How a Vision for Childcare Was Built in Griswold, Iowa

[Read More]

02.14.2024

Community FacilitiesFirst RespondersGrantsHousingRural Development

### New Teacher Buys a Home: Kailee Invests in Jasper County, Iowa

[Read More]

01.07.2024

HomeownershipHousing

### Norris Family Fixer Upper

[Read More]

10.04.2023

Home RepairHomeownershipHousing

### Partners providing possibilities

[Read More]

09.18.2023

HomeownershipHousing

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
- …
-              10           
-   Next
Home > Inflation Reduction Act > Inflation Reduction Act Investments by State

The Biden-Harris Administration is making a historic investment in rural communities, expanding clean energy and supporting American energy independence, investing in popular conservation programs and climate-smart agriculture, and fostering economic opportunity.

Thanks to Inflation Reduction Act funding, more farmers and more acres are enrolled in voluntary conservation practices than at any single point in history, and even with this unprecedented funding, USDA is seeing more demand than we have funds to support. The below fact sheets share investments by state by NRCS as well as USDA’s Rural Development.
§ 292.3 How does a tribe seek an opinion on whether its newly acquired lands meet, or will meet, one of the exceptions in this subpart? ( a ) If the newly acquired lands are already in trust and the request does not concern whether a specific area of land is a “reservation,” the tribe may submit a request for an opinion to either the National Indian Gaming Commission or the Office of Indian Gaming.
( b ) If the tribe seeks to game on newly acquired lands that require a land-into-trust application or the request concerns whether a specific area of land is a “reservation,” the tribe must submit a request for an opinion to the Office of Indian Gaming.
§ 9409.11 Restrictions that apply to released records. ( a ) The General Counsel may impose conditions or restrictions on the release of official records and information, including the requirement that parties to the proceeding obtain a protective order or execute a confidentiality agreement to limit access and any further disclosure. The terms of the protective order or confidentiality agreement must be acceptable to the General Counsel. In cases where protective orders or confidentiality agreements have already been executed, the Commission may condition the release of official records and information on an amendment to the existing protective order or confidentiality agreement.
( b ) If the General Counsel so determines, original Commission records may be presented for examination in response to a demand or request, but they are not to be presented as evidence or otherwise used in a manner by which they could lose their identity as official Commission records, nor are they to be marked or altered. In lieu of the original records, certified copies will be presented for evidentiary purposes (see 28 U.S.C. 1733).
Docket No. EPA-HQ-2011-0660 Paul Ryder Vienna , Virginia I' ve never actively participated in any bureaucratic debate outside of the office but feel I have to weigh in on thi s one. l strongly support the EPA's proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants and wou ld even support tightening the carbon pollution s tandards for existing power plants within reason. I' ve been to Beijing and have seen the jeopardy people can be put in when governments have an overly permissive attitude toward polluters and the ir impact on the environment. I' ve attached a random picture I took whi le out on a jog one day
. It ' s not an overcast day in thi s picture, that's smog. I have 2 kids now and will soon have a 3rd. I need them and the kids they wi ll one day have to be comfortab l e playing o utside, swimming in natural l akes and rivers , and s imply breathing fres h, clean air. lt frustrates me to no end that politicians bent on squabbling with one another can ' t come together to improve the e nvi r onment for their chi ldren and mine
. Power plants need to be held accountab l e for the pollutants they inject into our environment. I understand that there will be a cost that someone, probably the consu mers of ener gy, wi ll need to bear. 

### l 'm ok with that because we make our own c hoices about how much energy we consume and are wi lling to pay for
. But if decisions regarding power plant pollutants are made w ith out considering the long-term impacts to o ur kids and grandkid s then we take a choice away from them. They won ' t be given the choice to buy c l

ean ai r or dirty a ir; they ' ll be forced to breathe the air we enab l ed. I'm a lso concerned for glo bal warming ' s impact to plant and animal habitats
. How can we , a lmost careless l y , continue to wou nd a g lobal ecosystem that took millions ofyears to develop? As o nly a sma ll component of the globa l ecosyste m how do wejustify impacting everything e lse in the ecosystem so drastically ? [hope that my kids and their kids can enjoy the same plant and animal diversity that I have and I worry that if we don ' t proactively (as in the case of new power plants) and reactively (for existing plants) address carbon emissions now we ' re leavi ng the future to chance and ' wishful thinking '. l wou ld love to see a ll politicians who have kids come together, put aside their party allegiances and do what ' s right by the e n vironment. I know that w ill never happen but i f decision makers on both s ides wou ld consider what is best for the co untry our kids will live in rather than what is cheapes t a nd s impl est now the debate over power plan pollutants mi ght be more productive. The longer we wait to do what' s right the fewer options we ' ll have for reversing the damage
. It seems likely that any fixes we implement 5 years from now w ill be more costl y than the so luti o ns we put in place today
.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1351
MADELIENE Y. JEFFREYS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusNORTH CAROLINA DISABILITY DETERMINATION SERVICE; JUDY GARDNER, in her capacity as DDS 22 108, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-96-656-6) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 22, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Madeliene Y. Jeffreys, Appellant Pro Se. Belinda Anne Smith, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoningof the district court. Jeffreys v. North Carolina Disability Determination Serv. , No. CA-96-656-6 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Rural Development Partners with DOJ to Invest $2.2 Million to Empower 

Those Trapped in Domestic Violence by Giving Them Tools to Keep Pets Safe

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28, 2020 – United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Deputy Under Secretary 

for Rural Development Bette Brand today announced that USDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of 

Justice (DOJ) to invest $2.2 million in grants to support the construction of and operating expenses for domestic 

violence shelters that allow individuals to bring their pets with them when escaping dangerous situations.

Funding is being provided to organizations in six states: Arizona, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee 

and Texas. Projects being funded include:

• The SAFE Alliance (SAFE | Stop Abuse For Everyone) in Austin, Texas, will use a $312,483 grant to 

refurbish shelter/transitional housing units at SAFE’s Grove Boulevard campus. Funds will make the 

units more pet friendly and help to provide shelter, transitional housing and supportive services to 

domestic violence victims and their companion animals. The grant will also provide preventative, nonemergency and emergency medical care, and facilitate transport to and from appointments for 

companion animals of domestic violence victims living on campus. 

• The Rose Brooks Center in Kansas City, Mo., will use a $400,000 grant to expand housing and 

supportive resources for domestic violence victims with companion animals and increase the levels of 

training and advocacy in order to improve the community’s response to the co-occurrence of domestic 

violence and pet abuse. 

BACKGROUND:

The funding was made possible through the Pet and Women Safety (PAWS) Act, which was included in the 

2018 Farm Bill. The PAWS Act amends the previous federal domestic violence laws to prohibit an abuser from 

killing, injuring, harassing, stalking or engaging in conduct that places a victim in reasonable fear of death, or 

that serious bodily injury may be done to their pet.

The grant program supports short-term shelter and housing assistance, such as expenses incurred for the 

temporary shelter, housing, boarding or fostering of the pets of domestic violence victims. Some shelters 

provide onsite housing for animals where clients can stay with pets, or they will help clients find foster homes 

or safe havens during their stay to help ensure their pets are safe.

The Act authorizes $3 million per year for Fiscal Year 2019 through Fiscal Year 2023 to allow more shelters to 

make accommodations for pets. 

###
# C_2010161EN.01003401.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Danilo Spina v Ministero dell’Interno

(Case C-176/10)

(2010/C 161/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danilo Spina

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

Question referred

Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

| (a) | tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

| (b) | in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

| (c) | provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?

---
### §1141d. Request for extension of protection subsequent to international registration

The holder of an international registration that is based upon a basic application filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office or a basic registration granted by the Patent and Trademark Office may request an extension of protection of its international registration by filing such a request—

(1) directly with the International Bureau; or

(2) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for transmittal to the International Bureau, if the request is in such form, and contains such transmittal fee, as may be prescribed by the Director.

(July 5, 1946, ch. 540, title XII, §64, as added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13402, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1916.)
<Page>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                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 annual report on Form 10-K of Cambridge Heart, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Robert B. Palardy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 the
Company.




                                            /S/ ROBERT B. PALARDY
                                            --------------------------
Dated:   March 31, 2003                     Robert B. Palardy
                                            Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.