alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010195EN.01003002.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/30

---

Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Ebro Puleva v Commission

(Case T-234/10)

2010/C 195/48

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ebro Puleva, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan and R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) of the consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax (texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades, TRLIS) involves State aid elements |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) of the consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax (texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades, TRLIS) involves State aid elements

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS involves State aid elements when it applies to acquisitions of shares which entail the acquisition of control; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS involves State aid elements when it applies to acquisitions of shares which entail the acquisition of control;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision against which these proceedings are brought is the same as that contested in Cases T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission; T-221/10 IBERDROLA v Commission; and T-225/10 BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA v Commission.

Autogrill España

Commission

IBERDROLA

Commission

BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA ARGENTARIA

Commission

The pleas in law and the principal arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.

---
# C_2011055EN.01003201.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/32

---

Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Yilmaz v OHIM — Tequila Cuervo (TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO)

(Case T-584/10)

2011/C 55/57

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mustafa Yilmaz (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: F. Kuschmirek, 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: Tequila Cuervo, SA de CV (Tlaquepaque, Mexico)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 October 2010 in case R 1162/2009-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 October 2010 in case R 1162/2009-2; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘TEQUILA MATADOR HECHO EN MEXICO’, for goods in class es 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 3975117

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 30205053.1 of the word mark ‘MATADOR’ for goods in class 32; International trade mark registration No 792051 of the word mark ‘MATADOR’ for goods in class 32

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was no likelihood of confusion, as the trade marks in question are confusingly similar with regard to the goods for which the applied for trade mark seeks protection.

Pleas in law:

---
### SUBCHAPTER I—MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Forests of Rhode Island.**
 
2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.163/39:
Item Number:0084-N-39 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000966206
 
August 29, 2018
#### § 52.5 Report of net salvage proceeds.

A report of the amount for net salvage derived from the sale of each animal for which a claim for indemnity is made under § 52.2(a) must be made on a salvage form that shows the gross receipts, expenses if any, and net proceeds. The original or a copy of the salvage form must be furnished by the owner to the veterinarian in charge.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0151)

[65 FR 20712, Apr. 18, 2000]
NO. CAAP-16-0000739

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Employer/Appellant-Appellee, v. RONALD N. NAUMU, Employee/Appellee-Appellant, and MERIT APPEALS BOARD, Agency/Appellee-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 15-1-2432)

ORDER OF CORRECTION (By: Nakasone, J., for the court 1 ) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment on Appeal entered on March 23, 2022 (docket no. 132) in the above case is hereby corrected as follows:

On page 1, in footnote 1, the text should be corrected, so that the footnote 1 reads:

Considered by Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.

The clerk of the Court is directed to take all necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of these changes. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, May 10 , 2022.

FOR THE COURT: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

1 Considered by Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ
. Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000739 10-MAY-2022 08:10 AM Dkt. 134 OCOR
#### §§ 381.481-381.499 [Reserved]
# C_2010260EN.01000402.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 June 2010 — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

(Case C-309/10)

()

2010/C 260/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the temporary restructuring amount laid down in paragraph 2 of that article of EUR 113,30 per tonne of quota for sugar and inulin syrup for the marketing year 2008/2009 must in any case be imposed in full, even if such payment would result in a (significant) surplus in the restructuring fund and there appears to be no prospect of any further increase in financing requirements? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the temporary restructuring amount laid down in paragraph 2 of that article of EUR 113,30 per tonne of quota for sugar and inulin syrup for the marketing year 2008/2009 must in any case be imposed in full, even if such payment would result in a (significant) surplus in the restructuring fund and there appears to be no prospect of any further increase in financing requirements?

1

| 2. | In the event that the reply to the first question is in the affirmative:
  Does Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 in that case infringe the principle that the Community can act only within the powers conferred on it, because Article 11 could, by means of the temporary restructuring amount, introduce a general tax which is not limited to financing expenditure benefiting the persons called upon to pay the tax? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the reply to the first question is in the affirmative:

Does Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 in that case infringe the principle that the Community can act only within the powers conferred on it, because Article 11 could, by means of the temporary restructuring amount, introduce a general tax which is not limited to financing expenditure benefiting the persons called upon to pay the tax?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42.

1

---
### Palynomorph biostratigraphy of mid(?)-Campanian to upper Maastrichtian strata along the Colville River, North Slope of Alaska

By: Norman O. FrederiksenD.J. McIntyre

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr00493

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
# C_2010195EN.01002602.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/26

---

Action brought on 12 May 2010 — DHL International v OHIM — Service Point Solutions (SERVICEPOINT)

(Case T-218/10)

2010/C 195/41

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DHL International GmbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K.-U. Jonas, 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: Service Point Solutions, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2010 in Case R 62/2009-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 February 2010 in Case R 62/2009-2;

| — | Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word element ‘SERVICEPOINT’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 20, 35 and 39.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Service Point Solutions, SA

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark including the word element ‘Service Point’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 16, 20, 35, 38, 39 and 42; figurative mark including the word element ‘service point’ for goods and services in Class 16; and figurative mark including the word element ‘service point’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 42.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks, and infringement of Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 since the Board of Appeal failed to have regard to various documents.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2012343EN.01001402.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 — France v Commission

(Case T-154/10) (1)

1

(State aid - Aid allegedly implemented by France in the form of an implied, unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste as a result of its status as a publicly-owned establishment - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Burden of proving the existence of State aid - Advantage)

2012/C 343/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented: initially by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, B. Beaupère-Manokha, J. Gstalter and S. Menez, and subsequently by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/605/EU of 26 January 2010 on State aid C 56/07 (formerly E 15/05) granted by France to La Poste (OJ 2010 L 274, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
#### Charles Olsen, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. -Laughlin) J., dissenting.
# C_2010195EN.01001801.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/18

---

Order of the General Court of 21 May 2010 — ICO Services v Parliament and Council

(Case T-441/08) (1)

1

(Actions for annulment - Decision No 626/2008/EC - Common framework for the selection and authorisation of operators of systems providing mobile satellite services - Absence of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

2010/C 195/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ICO Services Ltd (Slough, Berkshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Tupper, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: J. Rodrigues and R. Kaškina, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Kimberley and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

Defendants:

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and A. Nijenhuis, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2008 L 172, p. 15)

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. | ICO Services Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ICO Services Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union.

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

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.

1

---
-  Home 
-  Legislative Mandates 

# In This Section

                      -  PIPES Act of 2020 
                      -  PIPES Act of 2016 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Safety Improvement Act of 2012 
                      -  Pipeline Safety Act of 2011 
                      -  The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 
                      -  Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) / Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) 

## Contact Us

Office of Governmental, International, and Public Affairs
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**phmsa.publicaffairs@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4831****Fax:**202-366-7431**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) / Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), aka Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), was signed into law by President Biden on **November 15, 2021**. The law authorizes $1.2 trillion for transportation and infrastructure spending with $550 billion of that figure going toward "new" investments and programs. This bipartisan law strengthens PHMSA's safety authority and includes many provisions that will help PHMSA fulfill its mission of protecting people and the environment by advancing the safe transportation of energy and other hazardous materials.
§ 533.4 Other facilities and conditions to be provided. When required by the District Manager or the frontline supervisor, each official establishment must provide the following facilities and conditions, and such others as may be found to be essential to efficient conduct of inspection and maintenance of sanitary conditions: ( a ) Sufficient light to be adequate for the proper conduct of inspection;
( b ) Tables, benches, and other equipment on which inspection is to be performed, of such design, material, and construction as to enable Program employees to conduct their inspection in a ready, efficient and clean manner;
( c ) Receptacles for holding and handling diseased carcasses and parts, so constructed as to be readily cleaned and to be marked in a conspicuous manner with the phrase “U.S. Condemned” in letters not less than 2 inches high, and, when required by the frontline supervisor, to be equipped in a way that allows the receptacles to be locked or sealed;
( d ) Adequate arrangements, including liquid soap and cleansers, for cleansing and disinfecting hands, for sterilizing all implements used in handling diseased carcasses, for cleaning and sanitizing floors, and such other articles and places as may be contaminated by diseased carcasses or otherwise;
( e ) Adequate facilities, including denaturing materials, for the proper disposal of condemned articles in accordance with the regulations in this subchapter;
( f ) Docks and receiving rooms, to be designated by the operator of the official establishment, with the frontline supervisor, for the receipt and inspection of fish, fish products, or other products.
( g ) Suitable lockers in which brands bearing the official inspection legend and other official devices (excluding labels) can be stored. Official certificates shall be kept when not in use in suitable file cabinets. All such lockers and file cabinets shall be equipped for sealing or locking with locks or seals to be supplied by the Department. The keys of such locks shall not leave the custody of Program employees.
### §38. Association of marine insurance companies; application of antitrust laws

(a) Whenever used in this section—

(1) The term "association" means any association, exchange, pool, combination, or other arrangement for concerted action; and

(2) The term "marine insurance companies" means any persons, companies, or associations, authorized to write marine insurance or reinsurance under the laws of the United States or of a State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.

(b) Nothing contained in the "antitrust laws" as designated in section 12 of this title, shall be construed as declaring illegal an association entered into by marine insurance companies for the following purposes: To transact a marine insurance and reinsurance business in the United States and in foreign countries and to reinsure or otherwise apportion among its membership the risks undertaken by such association or any of the component members.

(June 5, 1920, ch. 250, §29, 41 Stat. 1000.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 885 of the former Appendix to Title 46, prior to the completion of the enactment of Title 46, Shipping, by Pub. L. 109–304, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1485.
#### § 319.102 Corned beef round and other corned beef cuts.

In preparing “Corned Beef Round” and other corned beef cuts, except “Corned Beef Briskets,” the curing solution shall be applied to pieces of beef weighing not less than one pound and such application shall not result in an increased weight of the cured beef product of more than 10 percent over the weight of the fresh uncured beef cut. If the product is cooked, the weight of the finished product shall not exceed the weight of the fresh uncured beef cut.