alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010234EN.01002101.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2010 — ROJ TV A/S v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-245/10)

()

2010/C 234/33

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ROJ TV A/S

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

A ruling is sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether and, if so, the circumstances under which the application of national legislation concerning the prohibition of an association for infringement of the principles of international understanding falls within the field coordinated by Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC (2) of 30 June 1997 and, thus, is precluded by Article 2a of the directive?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

1

(2)  Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60).

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5009 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5009

To amend the Small Business Act to address the eligibility for certain 
small businesses and organizations to receive loans under the Paycheck 
                          Protection Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 10, 2020

   Mr. Moran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Small Business Act to address the eligibility for certain 
small businesses and organizations to receive loans under the Paycheck 
                          Protection Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting More Nonprofits Through 
the PPP Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM.

    Section 7(a)(36)(D) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
636(a)(36)(D)) is amended by striking clause (i) and inserting the 
following:
                            ``(i) In general.--During the covered 
                        period, in addition to small business concerns, 
                        any business concern, nonprofit organization, 
                        veterans organization, or Tribal business 
                        concern described in section 31(b)(2)(C) shall 
                        be eligible to receive a covered loan if the 
                        business concern, nonprofit organization, 
                        veterans organization, or Tribal business 
                        concern--
                                    ``(I) employs not more than the 
                                greater of--
                                            ``(aa) 500 employees; or
                                            ``(bb) if applicable, the 
                                        size standard in number of 
                                        employees established by the 
                                        Administration for the industry 
                                        in which the business concern, 
                                        nonprofit organization, 
                                        veterans organization, or 
                                        Tribal business concern 
                                        operates; or
                                    ``(II) is as described in clauses 
                                (i) and (ii) of section 3(a)(5)(B).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 381.164 “(Kind) barbecued.”

Such product consists of ready-to-cook poultry of the kind indicated, that has been cooked in dry heat and basted with a seasoned sauce.
§ 590.100 Specific exemptions. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) The following are exempt, to the extent prescribed, from the inspection of egg products processing operations in section 5(a) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 1034(a)), provided the conditions for exemption and the provisions of these regulations are met: ( 1 ) The processing and sale of egg products by any poultry producer from eggs of his own flock's production when sold directly to a household consumer exclusively for use by the consumer and members of the household and its nonpaying guests and employees.
( 2 ) The processing in non-official plants, including but not limited to bakeries, restaurants, and other food processors, of certain categories of food products which contain eggs or egg products as an ingredient, as well as the sale and possession of such products. Such products must be manufactured from inspected egg products processed in accordance with the regulations in this part and 9 CFR part 591 or from eggs containing no more restricted eggs than are allowed in the official standards for U.S. Consumer Grade B shell eggs.
[85 FR 68674, Oct. 29, 2020]
# C_2010346EN.01005801.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/58

---

Action brought on 26 October 2010 — Nike International v OHIM (DYNAMIC SUPPORT)

(Case T-512/10)

()

2010/C 346/112

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, USA) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 August 2010 in case R 640/2010-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 August 2010 in case R 640/2010-4; and

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

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “DYNAMIC SUPPORT” for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8299869

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment and wrongly concluded that this Article precludes the registration of the mark applied for.

Pleas in law:

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Archie, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 750]

Appeal from a judg*1257ment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph S. Forma, J.), rendered December 10, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed. Present—Kehoe, J.P, Martoche, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
SECURITY ASSURANCE HOLDINGS LTD. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    1,401,089
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           0  
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             0
<EQUITIES>                                 30,539
<MORTGAGE>                                      0  
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                          1,431,628
<CASH>                                     12,475
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                         30,618
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                    171,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,900,644
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            75,417
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                       595,196
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                           130,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                   700
<COMMON>                                  694,174
<OTHER-SE>                                187,486
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,900,644
<PREMIUMS>                                109,511
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                        72,085
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                         11,522
<OTHER-INCOME>                              9,303
<BENEFITS>                                  9,156
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                27,962
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                       26,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           138,499
<INCOME-TAX>                               37,997
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       100,502
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0 
<CHANGES>                                       0  
<NET-INCOME>                              100,502
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                3.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                3.25
<RESERVE-OPEN>                             72,079
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                         5,400
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                           7,361
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                          2,850
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                            6,573
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                            75,417
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                         0       
        


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

#### § 28.111 Scope.

The Board shall consider, decide and order corrective action (as appropriate) in cases arising from the determination of appropriate units of employment for collective bargaining and cases arising from elections and certifications of collective bargaining representatives. Board decisions in these matters will be made with due regard for relevant provisions of GAO Orders and with the objective of insuring that the GAO labor relations program is consistent with Chapter 71 of Title 5, United States Code, which prescribes the standards for the labor relations program in the executive branch.
(67 South. 951)

No. 20836.

#### STATE v. NEJIN.

(Feb. 23, 1915.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1915.)

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Oaddo; J. R. Land, Judge.

F. A. Nejin was convicted of violating an ordinance of a police jury, and appeals.

Reversed, and defendant discharged.

Scheen & Blanchard and E. P. Mills, all of Shreveport, for appellant. R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., and W. A. Mabry, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport (G. A. Gondran, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

MONROE, O. J.

This case presents the same questions that are presented in the cases of State v. Hagen, 67 South. 935,3 and State v. Whitbeck and Harris, 67 South. 949,4 this day decided, and is governed by the same principles of law. For the reasons assigned in those cases, therefore, the conviction and sentence heroin appealed from is set aside, and the defendant ordered to be discharged.

PROYOSTY, LAND, and O’NIELL. JJ., concur in the decree on the ground that the police jury was without authority to pass the ordinance in question.

O’NIELL, J., is of the opinion that this court is without jurisdiction, for the reasons assigned in his dissenting opinion in State v. Hagen, 67 South. 942, decided this day.
Editorial Note on Part 12
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 12 appear at 69 FR 32438, June 10, 2004.

§ 12.41 Corrective measures. ( a ) *Corrective measures.* For items identified during a periodic inspection or comprehensive assessment as requiring corrective action, the following conditions apply: ( 1 ) *Corrective plan and schedule.* ( i ) Not later than 60 days after a report on a periodic inspection or comprehensive assessment is filed with the Regional Engineer, the licensee must submit to the Regional Engineer a plan and schedule for addressing the recommendations of the independent consultant(s) and for investigating, designing, and carrying out any corrective measures that the licensee proposes to implement.
( ii ) The plan and schedule may include any proposal, including taking no action, that the licensee considers a preferable alternative to any corrective measure recommended in the report of the independent consultant(s). Any proposed alternative must be accompanied by the licensee's complete justification and detailed analysis and evaluation in support of that alternative.
( 2 ) *Carrying out the plan.* The licensee must complete all corrective measures in accordance with the plan and schedule submitted to, and approved or modified by, the Regional Engineer, and on an annual basis must submit a status report on the corrective measures until all have been completed.
( 3 ) *Extension of time.* For good cause shown, the Regional Engineer may extend the time for filing the plan and schedule required by this section.
( b ) *Emergency corrective measures.* The licensee must provide that if, in the course of a periodic inspection or comprehensive assessment conducted under this subpart D, an independent consultant discovers any condition for which emergency corrective measures are advisable, such as a condition affecting the safety of a project or project works as defined in § 12.3(b)(4) of this part, the independent consultant must immediately notify the licensee and the licensee must report that condition to the Regional Engineer pursuant to § 12.10(a) of this part. Emergency corrective measures must be included in the corrective plan and schedule required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and are also subject to paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.
#### § 91.2 Applicability.

You may not export any animal or animal germplasm from the United States except in compliance with this part.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5648]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,694]


Arcelor Mittal, Formerly Known as Mittal Steel Walker Wire, a 
Subsidiary of Arcelor Mittal--Montreal, Including On-Site Leased 
Workers From Leasing Systems, Ferndale, MI; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on April 29, 2010, applicable to workers of Arcelor Mittal, formerly 
known as Mittal Steel Walker Wire, a subsidiary of Arcelor Mittal--
Montreal, including on-site leased workers from Leasing Systems, Inc., 
Ferndale, Michigan. The workers are engaged in activities related to 
the warehousing and distribution of processed steel coil, bars, rods 
and wire. The notice was published in the Federal Register on May 28, 
2010 (75 FR 30070).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm.
    The review shows that on August 9, 2007, a certification of 
eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance was issued for all 
workers of Mittal Steel Walker Wire, Inc., Ferndale, Michigan, 
separated from employment on or after July 23, 2006 through August 9, 
2009. The notice was published in the Federal Register on January 26, 
2009 (74 FR 4463).
    In order to avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the 
Department is amending the July 15, 2008 impact date established for 
TA-W-71,694, to read August 10, 2009.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-71,696 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Arcelor Mittal, formerly known as Mittal Steel 
Walker Wire, a subsidiary of Arcelor Mittal--Montreal, including on-
site leased workers from Leasing Systems, Inc., Ferndale, Michigan, 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after August 10, 2009, through April 29, 2012, and all workers in 
the group threatened with total or partial separation from 
employment on date of certification through two years from the date 
of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of February 2011.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-5648 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
§ 537.2 Hazard analysis and HACCP plan. ( a ) A fish establishment's hazard analysis shall take into account the food safety hazards that can occur before, during, and after harvest.
( b ) The failure of an establishment to develop and implement a hazard analysis and a HACCP plan that comply with this part or to operate in accordance with the requirements of 9 CFR Chapter III, Subchapter E, will render the products produced under these conditions adulterated.
### §2775. Flight rations

There may be furnished to officers, enlisted members, and civilian employees, while actually engaged in flight operations, an aircraft flight ration in kind, chargeable to the proper Coast Guard appropriation, which flight ration shall be supplementary to any ration or subsistence allowance now granted to such personnel. No part of an aircraft flight ration shall be furnished without cost to any individual in a travel status or to any individual to whom a per diem allowance is granted in lieu of actual subsistence.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 533, §480; Pub. L. 98–557, §15(a)(3)(B), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2865; renumbered §2775, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §116(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4226; Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8505(a)(43), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4750.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Derived from the title 34, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §909 (June 5, 1942, ch. 327, 56 Stat. 308).

Said section is applicable to Navy personnel only. Experience has shown that similar authority should be granted to the Coast Guard; it will operate to the benefit of Navy personnel stopping over at Coast Guard air stations as well as to the benefit of Coast Guard personnel stopping over at Naval air stations.

The language of said section is closely paralleled.

Said section would in no way be affected. 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 substituted "individual" for "person" in two places.

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 480 of this title as this section.

1984—Pub. L. 98–557 substituted reference to enlisted members for reference to enlisted men.
# C_2007056EN.01003502.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/35

---

Action brought on 8 January 2007 — FVB v OHIM — FVD (FVB)

(Case T-10/07)

(2007/C 56/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: FVB Gesellschaft für Finanz- und Versorgungsberatung mbH (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: P. Koehler, 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: FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH

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

Form of order sought

| — | Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in appeal case R 1343/2005-4 of 6 November 2006 so as to annul the decision of 12 September 2005 on opposition No B 549 362 of the Finanz- und Versorgungsdienstgesellschaft für Finanzberatung und Versorgemanagement mbH against application No 2 126 175 and to reject the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in appeal case R 1343/2005-4 of 6 November 2006 so as to annul the decision of 12 September 2005 on opposition No B 549 362 of the Finanz- und Versorgungsdienstgesellschaft für Finanzberatung und Versorgemanagement mbH against application No 2 126 175 and to reject the opposition;

| — | 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

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FVB’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 (Application No 2 126 175).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: FVD Gesellschaft für Finanzplanung und Vorsorgemanagement Deutschland mbH.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German word mark ‘FVD’ for services in Class 36, the opposition being brought against the registration in Class 36.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted, partial rejection of the application.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).

1

---