alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS


<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                                  33
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          757
<ALLOWANCES>                                             7
<INVENTORY>                                            574
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,404
<PP&E>                                                 581
<DEPRECIATION>                                         441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       2,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                1,500
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                17
<OTHER-SE>                                            (144)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         2,091
<SALES>                                              2,552
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2,566
<CGS>                                                1,014
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        2,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         43
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     43
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                            43
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.00



</TABLE>
# C_2012258EN.01002102.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/21

---

Order of the General Court of 13 July 2012 — IVBN v Commission

(Case T-201/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to housing corporations - Existing aid - Special project aid to housing corporations - Decision accepting the Member State’s commitments - Decision declaring new aid compatible - No individual concern - Failure to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Action inadmissible in part and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

2012/C 258/39

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (Voorburg, the Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for 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. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

1

---
### §3749. Effect of removal by the President or failure of consent of the Senate

(a) The President may, for cause, remove the name of any officer from a list of selectees established under section 3740 of this title.

(b) If the Senate, where required, does not consent to the appointment of an officer whose name is on a list of selectees established under section 3740 of this title, that officer's name shall be removed from the list.

(c) An officer whose name is removed from a list of selectees under subsection (a) or (b) continues to be eligible for consideration for promotion. If selected for promotion by the next selection board and promoted, that officer shall be assigned the date of rank and precedence that would have been assigned if the officer's name had not been previously removed. However, if the officer is not selected by the next selection board, or if the officer's name is again removed from the list of selectees, the officer shall be considered for all purposes as having twice failed of selection for promotion.

(Added Pub. L. 96–322, §1, Aug. 4, 1980, 94 Stat. 1013, §738; renumbered §3749 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §§118(b), 123(b)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4233, 4240.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 788 of this title prior to the complete revision of former chapter 21 of this title by Pub. L. 96–322.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, §118(b), renumbered section 738 of this title as this section.

Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 115–282, §123(b)(2), substituted "section 3740" for "section 729".

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Functions

For assignment of functions of President under subsec. (a) of this section, see section 2(d) of Ex. Ord. No. 13358, Sept. 28, 2004, 69 F.R. 58797, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 3, The President.
# C_2011038EN.01000401.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Liège (Belgium) lodged on 19 November 2010 — Richard Lebrun, Marcelle Howet v État belge — SPF Finances

(Case C-538/10)

2011/C 38/04

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance, Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Richard Lebrun, Marcelle Howet

Applicants:

Defendant: État belge — SPF Finances

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the [Treaty on European Union, as amended by the] Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously contained in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other hand, preclude a national law, such as that of 12 July 2009 amending Article 26 of the Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the [Constitutional Court], (1) from requiring prior recourse to the Constitutional Court by a national court which finds that a taxpaying citizen is deprived of the effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as incorporated into Community law, by another national law, namely Article 2 of the Law of 24 July 2008, without that national court being able immediately to ensure the direct applicability of Community law to the dispute before it or being able to scrutinise compliance with that convention when the Constitutional Court has recognised the compatibility of the national law with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Title II of the [Belgian] Constitution?

1

---

(1)  Moniteur belge, 31 July 2009, p. 51617.

1

Moniteur belge

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 2365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-540]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

January 6, 2011.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashtabula Wind III, LLC..................  EG11-1-000
Iberdrola Renewables, Inc................  EG11-2-000
Flat Water Wind Farm, LLC................  EG11-3-000
Wildorado Wind Two, LLC..................  EG11-4-000
Sandy Ridge Wind, LLC....................  EG11-5-000
AES ES Deepwater, LLC....................  EG11-6-000
Elk City II Wind, LLC....................  EG11-7-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of December 2010, the status of 
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became 
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 
366.7(a).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-540 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

      ( print page 12739)    
                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 1, 2011.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

                    1.                     *Comerica, Inc.,*                     Dallas, Texas; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Sterling Bancshares, Inc., Houston, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 3, 2011.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2011-5166 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
### §921. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section, acts July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §25, 39 Stat. 380; Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title III, §310, 42 Stat. 1477; Aug. 18, 1959, Pub. L. 86–168, title I, §104(h), 73 Stat. 387, provided for notice to indorsing association in event of a default on a mortgage held by a land bank and for making good of such default by association.
**Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 —
Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Blueshore Management (FRUIT)

(Case T-514/10)**

Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark FRUIT — Non-use — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

1.                     *Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the European Union Courts — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review
of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2) and (3)) (see para. 12)*

2.                     *Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the European Union Courts — Jurisdiction of the General Court — No
power to issue directions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 13)*

3.                     *Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use
of the mark in a form which differs through factors not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject-matter and
scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)(a)) (see paras 28, 29, 38)*

4.                     *Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Use
of the mark in a form which differs through factors not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Word mark FRUIT (Council
Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 39, 40, 54-68)*

5.                     *Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Assessment
of the genuineness of the use of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)) (see para. 50 )*

6.                     *Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Criteria
for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1), and Art. 78(1)(f));
Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3)) (see paras 51, 52, 55)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2010 (Case R 1686/2008-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Blueshore Management SA and Fruit of the Loom, Inc. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Fruit of the Loom, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Blueshore Management SA to bear its own costs. |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIOMARA JEANMILLETTE ORTIZ LANDAVERDE,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 72918

Agency No. A215

- 815

- 766

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022 * *

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Xiomara Jeanmillette Ortiz Landaverde

, a native and citizen of El Salvador

,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 72918

application for asylum

, withholding of removal

, and protection under the

Con vention Against Torture (“CAT”)

.

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review in part and dismiss it in part

.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Ortiz Landaverde

failed to establish that she would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.

See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ( a n a pplicant’s “ desire

to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by

gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”)

. Thus, her asylum and

withholding of removal claim s fail. Because this aspect of the agency’s

determin ation is dispositive, we do not reach Ortiz Landaverde’s remaining

contentions concerning those claims.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the contentions in Ortiz Landaverde ’s brief

regarding CAT protection because she did not exhaust them in the agency. Barron

v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
§ 381.402 Location of nutrition information. ( a ) Nutrition information on a label of a packaged poultry product shall appear on the label's principal display panel or on the information panel, except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) Nutrition information for gift packs may be shown at a location other than on the product label, provided that the labels for these products bear no nutrition claim. In lieu of on the product label, nutrition information may be provided by alternate means such as product label inserts.
( c ) Poultry products in packages that have a total surface area available to bear labeling greater than 40 square inches but whose principal display panel and information panel do not provide sufficient space to accommodate all required information may use any alternate panel that can be readily seen by consumers for the nutrition information. In determining the sufficiency of available space for the nutrition information, the space needed for vignettes, designs, and other nonmandatory label information on the principal display panel may be considered.
[58 FR 675, Jan. 6, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 40215, Aug. 8, 1994]
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications for Grants to Help Repair Housing in Rural 

Communities 

WASHINGTON, June 2, 2021 – Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development Justin Maxson today 

announced that USDA is seeking applications for grants to make housing repairs for low- and very-low-income 

rural residents. The grants are being provided through USDA’s Housing Preservation Grant program.

Eligible applicants include town or county governments, public agencies, federally recognized Indian tribes, and 

nonprofit and faith-based organizations. 

USDA does not provide funding directly to individual homeowners under this program. For information with 

the corrected application date, see page 30252 of the June 7, 2021, Federal Register.

Paper pre-applications are due by 5:00 p.m. local time on July 19, 2021, at the Rural Development state office 

where the project will be located. Electronic pre-applications are due by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, July 

19, 2021. For a list of offices, visit the state office website.

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page. 

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allan Barnes, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 513]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), dated November 24, 2004. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*The total risk factor score on the risk assessment instrument (RAI) prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) resulted in the presumptive classification of defendant as a level three risk. Following a redetermination hearing, Supreme Court eliminated points that had been assessed by the Board, resulting in the presumptive classification of defendant as a level two risk based upon his recalculated total risk factor score on the RAI. The court *1228determined, however, that defendant is nevertheless a level three risk based upon the presumptive override for the infliction of serious physical injury *(see People v Brown,*302 AD2d 919, 920-921 [2003]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, “the court’s determination of defendant’s risk level was properly based on clear and convincing evidence related to the statutory factors” *(id.*at 921). Clear and convincing evidence also supports the court’s alternative determination that the recalculated total risk factor score did not adequately take into account defendant’s criminal record or lack of success during periods of supervised release, and thus that an upward departure from the presumptive risk level was warranted on that basis as well (see *People v Thomas,*307 AD2d 759, 760 [2003]; *see generally*Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [Nov. 1997]). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit. Present—Gorski, J.E, Smith, Centra and Green, JJ.
**Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 November 2011 – Abbott Laboratories v OHIM (RESTORE)**

**(Case T-363/10)**

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark RESTORE – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Lack of distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Infringement of the right to be heard – Duty to state reasons – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29, 36-37)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2010 (Case R 1560/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark RESTORE as a Community trade mark. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the application; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Abbott Laboratories to pay the costs. |