alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012032EN.01002501.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Vorfront)

(Case T-531/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Vorfront - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 32/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: M. Eck and J. Dönch, lawyers)

Applicant

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: S. Schäffner, subsequently by: R. Manea and finally by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2010 (Case R 570/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Vorfront as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Häfele GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Häfele GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1

---
FORM RD 2006-46 (Rev. 01-98)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MANUAL ISSUE No.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT WSAL PN 582

Washington, D.C 20250 DATE

May 17, 2023

PROCEDURE NOTICE

RD MANUAL CHANGES

INSERT RD INS 440.1 INTEREST RATES, AMORTIZATION, 

(WSAL) GUARANTEE FEE, ANNUAL CHARGE, AND 

FIXED PERIOD. This Instruction is 

partially revised as follows:

Exhibit B is partially revised to update the Treasury Judgement rate and the 

effective date of May 1, 2023.

REMOVE INSERT

Exhibit B: Exhibit B: 

 Pages 1 & 2 dated 03-24-23 Pages 1 & 2 revised 05-17-23.

RD HANDBOOK CHANGES

INSERT RD HB-1-3550 DIRECT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING LOANS

(WSAL) AND GRANTS FIELD OFFICE HANDBOOK. This 

Handbook is partially revised. The specific 

revisions are outlined below.

Chapter 12:

This Chapter is revised to streamline and/or clarify program requirements as 

follows:

- Paragraph 12.2 A, and 12.7, B, to remove the restriction on 504 funding be 

utilized to construct a new deck, driveways, and landscaping.

- Paragraph 12.3, updated to direct staff to provide the standardized application 

package. 

- Paragraph12.4 B, to remove minimum trade line requirement. 

- Paragraph 12.4.C, to lower the assets consideration from assets that can be 

converted in 90 days to 60 days.

- Paragraph 12.4 E, to allow grant eligible applicants to use grant funds first 

and foremost; and then consider loan repayment/funds as needed. 

- Paragraph 12.5 A, to state the definition of an accessory dwelling unit is at 

Paragraph 5.6, D.2.

READ PROCEDURE - DISCUSS IN STAFF CONFERENCE - KEEP PROCEDURE MANUAL UP TO DATE
Page 2 ISSUED: PN 582

May 17, 2023

RD HANDBOOK CHANGES

INSERT RD HB-1-3550 (Con.)

(WSAL)

- Paragraph 12.7 B, to add guidance which specifies that the transfer of ownership 

renews the dwellings eligibility for lifetime maximum grant assistance. 

- Paragraph 12.8 and 12.9, A to outline notification of loan and grant approval 

processes to align with requirements set forth in Administrative Notice 4891, 

Unliquidated Obligation Processes.

- Attachment 12-C, updated to align with formatting in Attachment 3-G, 502 Single 

Family Housing Checklist and corrected erroneous reference of LOA to LAO.

- Attachment 12-E, updated to align with Attachment 3-J including language that 

each adult household member must sign Form RD 3550-1 and changed applicant to 

household member in two places. 

Appendix 4:

Appendix 4 is revised to include the May 1, 2023, interest rate for the AboveModerate Single Family Housing non-program loans.

REMOVE INSERT

Chapter 12 dated 01-23-03. Chapter 12 dated 01-23-03.

 Pages 12-1 thru 12-17, Pages 12-1 thru 12-14,

 Attachments 12-A, 12-C and 12-E; Attachments 12-A, 12-C and

Appendix 4 dated 01-23-03: 12-E revised; and

 Pages 3 & 4. Appendix 4 dated 01-23-03:

 Pages 3 & 4 revised 05-17-23.

oOo
### Part B—Surety Bond Guarantees
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5010 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5010

  To establish the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative within the 
   Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 10, 2020

 Ms. Hirono (for herself and Ms. Ernst) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To establish the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative within the 
   Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Servicemembers and Veterans 
Initiative Act of 2020.''

SEC. 2. SERVICEMEMBERS AND VETERANS INITIATIVE.

    (a) Establishment.--There is established the Servicemembers and 
Veterans Initiative within the Civil Rights Division of the Department 
of Justice.
    (b) Duties.--The Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative shall--
            (1) serve as legal and policy advisor to the Attorney 
        General on the Department of Justice's efforts to enforce 
        criminal and civil laws that impact servicemembers, veterans, 
        and their families;
            (2) develop policy recommendations for the Attorney General 
        on how the Department of Justice may improve enforcement of 
        Federal law to support servicemembers, veterans, and their 
        families;
            (3) serve as the liaison and point of contact between the 
        Department of Justice and the military departments;
            (4) provide counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for 
        the Office of Justice Programs to ensure funding decisions take 
        into account servicemembers, veterans, and their families;
            (5) consult with components of the Department of Justice to 
        promote the provision of civil legal aid to servicemembers, 
        veterans, and their families;
            (6) serve as a liaison and point of contact with the 
        Consumer Protection Branch of the Civil Division of the 
        Department of Justice, with respect to the prosecution of 
        Federal crimes involving fraud that target servicemembers; and
            (7) serve as a liaison and point of contact with other 
        components of the Department of Justice as needed to support 
        the enforcement of other Federal laws that protect 
        servicemembers and veterans, as the Attorney General determines 
        appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 12
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 12 appear at 69 FR 32438, June 10, 2004.

§ 12.62 General requirements. ( a ) The Owner's Dam Safety Program shall designate either a Chief Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety Coordinator, as defined in § 12.61. Any Owner's Dam Safety Program that includes one or more dams or other project works classified as having a high hazard potential, as defined in § 12.3(b)(13)(i), shall designate a Chief Dam Safety Engineer.
( b ) The Owner's Dam Safety Program must be signed by the Owner and, as applicable, the Chief Dam Safety Engineer or the Chief Dam Safety Coordinator.
( c ) The Owner's Dam Safety Program must be reviewed and updated on a periodic basis as described in § 12.64 and, if applicable, must undergo an independent external audit or peer review as described in § 12.65.
( d ) The Owner may delegate to others, such as consultants, the work of establishing and implementing the Owner's Dam Safety Program and the role of Chief Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety Coordinator, as applicable. ( 1 ) If the role of Chief Dam Safety Engineer or Chief Dam Safety Coordinator is delegated to an outside party who does not oversee the day-to-day implementation of the Owner's Dam Safety Program, the Owner must designate an individual responsible for overseeing the day-to-day implementation.
( 2 ) Any delegation made in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section must be documented in the Owner's Dam Safety Program.
( 3 ) The Owner retains ultimate responsibility for the safety of the dam(s) and other project works covered by the Owner's Dam Safety Program.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT 

USDA Announces Claudette Fernandez as Chief Innovation Officer for the Rural 

Development Innovation Center 

WASHINGTON, May 7, 2018 – Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Anne Hazlett today 

announced Claudette Fernandez will serve as the Chief Innovation Officer of the Rural Development Innovation 

Center. 

 Fernandez has more than 15 years of experience in community economic development. At the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Fernandez most recently served as Director of Strategic Innovation for the 

Innovation Center. Before that, she served as Assistant Administrator for Rural Development’s Water and 

Environmental Programs. Fernandez has also served as Deputy Administrator for Business Programs as well as 

Director of Community Economic Development. Prior to joining USDA, she served as Senior Program

Manager at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

 As Chief Innovation Officer, Fernandez will lead USDA Rural Development to identify best practices and 

bring continuous improvement in program delivery to enhance the quality of life in rural communities. 

 USDA encourages partners and stakeholder groups to reach out to Fernandez in her new role to build on 

existing partnerships and facilitate new relationships. 

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Walnut Program

Shasta

Tehama

Glenn Butte

Lake Colusa Yuba

Placer

Sutter

Yolo

Sacramento

Amador

Calaveras

Joaquin

San

Solano

Contra

Costa

Stanislaus

Merced Madera

Fresno

Santa

Clara

San Benito

Tulare

Kings

Kern

San Luis

Obispo

Santa Barbara

RMA Product Management Division

Map Creation Date: October 25, 2022

Layer Credits: USDA

Source: USDA RMA - System of Analytics

Data Current Date: October 25, 2022

Map Projection: USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic

The information displayed in this map is intended to serve as an aid in displaying data provided or stored by the Risk Management Agency. It does not modify, replace or supersede any USDA published policy provisions or procedures.

Maps created by USDA Risk Management Agency are for spatial and visual context for depicting the basic information for “where”. Maps are not considered a survey. General Reference Only

Walnut Program Availability
### §195. Defense Automated Printing Service: applicability of Federal printing requirements

The Defense Automated Printing Service shall comply fully with the requirements of section 501 of title 44 relating to the production and procurement of printing, binding, and blank-book work.

(Added Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title III, §383(a), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1711.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Authority To Procure Services From Government Publishing Office

Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title III, §387(c), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1713, as amended by Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(b), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537, provided that: "Consistent with section 501 of title 44, United States Code, the Secretary of a military department or head of a Defense Agency may contract directly with the Government Publishing Office for printing and duplication services otherwise available through the Defense Automated Printing Service."
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT QIFANG ZHANG,

Pe titione r,
v. M ATTHEW

G. W HITAKER , Ac ting Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-73934 Age n c y No. A087-866-141
M EM OR ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

b e r 3, 2018 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a n d KENNELLY, *** Distric t Judge
. Qifa

ng Zha ng pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion A ppe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a

ppe a l from a n Im

m igra tion Judge ’ s de c ision de ny i ng his a p plic a tion 

# FIL ED
DEC 19 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble M a tthe w F. Ke nne lly , Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.
1for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote ct i o n u n de r t

he C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture . W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ). The B oa rd’ s de c ision is s upporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e K

in v . Holde r , 595 F.3d 1050, 1 0 54 (9th C ir. 2010)
. S i g n ific a n t une xpla ine d inc onsiste nc ie s pe rm e a t e d Zha

ng’ s a c c ount o f his m istre a t m en t i n China
. The Im

m igra tion Judge ga ve Zha ng o pportunitie s t o ex p l ai n those inc onsiste n c ie s, but the B oa rd found his
e xpla na tions unpe rsua s ive a nd unre sponsive
. And , p ar t i cula rly re le va nt t o the C AT
c la im , Zha

ng’ s only c orrobora ting e vide nc e c onsiste d of re ports on ge ne ra l tre nds in
re ligious tole ra nc e a nd hum a n rights in C hina
. The B IA c onc lude d tha t those re ports
w ere insuffic ie nt by the m se lve s to support Z h a ng’ s C AT c l a im
. S e e Dhital v. Muk ase y , 532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a re pe rsua de d tha t the re c ord did not c om

pe l a c ontra ry outc om e . Fina lly , Zha

ng’ s c l a im tha t his due proc e s s rights we re viola t e d by the Im m i gra tion J

udge ’ s c onduc t during the initia l proc e e dings in his c a se wa s not ra ise d be fore the B oa

rd. Zha ng “ the re fore d idn’ t e xha

ust tha t c la im , a nd w e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w it.” Abe be v . Muk a se y , 554 F.3d 1203, 1 2 0 8 ( 9 t h C ir. 2 009) (e n ba nc ); Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

2
#### Christine Sherman, Appellant, v Charles Sherman, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 656]

*671In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered August 21, 2001, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gibson, Ct Atty Ref), dated January 31, 2005, which denied her motion for an award of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Absent substantial compliance with 22 NYCRR 1400.3, which requires the execution and filing of a retainer agreement setting forth, inter alia, the terms of compensation and the nature of services to be rendered, an attorney may not recover a fee from an adversary spouse (see *Bishop v Bishop,*295 AD2d 382, 383 [2002]; *Mulcahy v Mulcahy,*285 AD2d 587, 588 [2001]; *Flanagan v Flanagan,*267 AD2d 80, 81 [1999]; 22 NYCRR 1400.3). Here, the retainer agreement between the appellant and her attorney terminated by its own terms upon entry of the judgment of divorce. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the filing of a new retainer agreement in support of the instant motion for a postjudgment attorney’s fee, which purportedly ratified the former agreement, did not amount to substantial compliance with the matrimonial rules *(see Wagman v Wagman,*8 AD3d 263 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the appellant’s attorney was not entitled to recover a fee for postjudgment services rendered to the appellant.

The appellant’s remaining contention regarding the award of an attorney’s fee incurred following the submission of the second retainer agreement in support of the instant motion is not properly before this Court. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.
# C_2011013EN.01004201.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/42

---

Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Cervelli v Commission

(Case F-98/10)

()

2011/C 13/83

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Francesca Cervelli (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and M. Arias Díaz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | declare the Commission's rejection decision of 30 June 2010 null and void; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the Commission's rejection decision of 30 June 2010 null and void;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### Lorraine Centofante *vs.*Albert Edmund Centofante.

JULY 17, 1953.

Present : Flynn, C. J., Capotosto, Baker, Condon and O’Connell, JJ.

O’Connell, J.

This is a petition for divorce from bed, board and future cohabitation on the grounds of extreme cruelty and gross misbehavior. The respondent husband filed a motion in the nature of a cross petition, seeking an *478absolute divorce on the same grounds as those alleged in the wife’s petition.

After a lengthy hearing in the superior court the trial justice granted the original petition on the ground of extreme cruelty and denied and dismissed the cross petition. A final decree was entered to that effect, awarding custody of the minor child of the parties to petitioner, providing for payment of alimony, and for respondent’s right to visit the minor child. The case is here on respondent’s bill of exceptions to that decision and to other rulings made during the trial.

The transcript of evidence is voluminous. Both parties offered testimony to show that the other party was guilty of gross misbehavior, but the trial justice decided that neither party had presented evidence which, would warrant him in granting the respective petitions on that ground. He did hold, however, that the evidence fully justified a finding for petitioner on the ground of extreme cruelty.

It appears clearly from an examination of the record that respondent’s exception to the decision is based solely upon the fact that it was in favor óf petitioner and not upon the denial and dismissal of his cross petition. In his brief the only point seriously argued is stated as follows: “Is the decision of the trial justice correct in finding that the respondent is guilty of extreme cruelty?” On respondent’s contention it therefore becomes necessary for us to determine only whether the trial justice was in error in deciding for petitioner on the ground of extreme cruelty. As to that issue the evidence is conflicting and the trial justice stated: “The evidence bearing on the respondent’s alleged extreme cruelty is, I find, very substantial, however.” We have carefully examined the transcript and we cannot say that his decision was clearly wrong. The exception thereto is overruled.

The respondent has also taken exceptions to certain evidentiary rulings made during the trial. In our opinion they do not warrant any detailed discussion. However, we have *479carefully considered them and find them to be without merit. They are therefore overruled.

*Isidore Kirshenbaum,*for petitioner.

*Luigi Capasso,*for respondent.

All of the respondent’s exceptions are overruled, and the case is remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.
**Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 April 2011 – Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Minicipiului Târgu-Jiu et Administraţia
Fondului pentru Mediu v Ijac**

**(Case C-336/10)**

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Internal taxation – Article 110 TFEU – Pollution tax levied upon first registration of motor vehicles

Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Pollution tax imposed on motor vehicles on their first registration in national territory (Art. 110 TFEU) (see paras 17-18,
operative part)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Curtea de Apel Craiova – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Environmental tax levied on motor vehicles upon first registration in a particular Member State – Whether national legislation is compatible with Article 110 TFEU. |

**Operative part**

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles
on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into
service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase
of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.
#### Basse Narain et al., Appellants, v Michael L. Vilardo, M.D., et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[823 NYS2d 748]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Fatrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered June 7, 2005. The order granted the motion of defendant Professional Communications Messaging Servicing, Inc. and the cross motion of defendants Michael L. Vilardo, M.D. and Ophthalmology Associates of Western New York, EC. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal insofar as it concerns defendant Ophthalmology Associates of Western New York, EC. be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed *(see Loafin’ Tree Rest. v Pardi*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985 [1990]) and the order is affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Hurlbutt, A.EJ., Gorski, Smith and Centra, JJ.