alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011013EN.01001801.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/18

---

Action brought on 12 October 2010 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-490/10)

()

2011/C 13/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Gómez-Leal, J. Rodrigues, L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 736/96; (1)

1

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the European Parliament seeks the annulment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 of 24 June 2010 by which the Council established a common framework for the notification to the Commission of information on investment projects in energy infrastructure. The regulation was adopted by the Council on the dual legal basis of Articles 337 TFEU and 187 EA. According to the Parliament, the Council’s choice of legal basis is erroneous because the measures covered by the contested regulation fall within the energy responsibilities of the Union which are specifically governed by Article 194 TFEU. Those measures should, therefore, have been adopted on the basis of Article 194(2) TFEU in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure laid down in that provision, instead of on the basis of Article 337 TFEU, which does not provide for any involvement by the Parliament. In addition, the Parliament takes the view that it was not necessary to rely also on Article 187 EA in order to adopt the measures at issue.

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 180, p. 7.

1

---
### §6303. Boxing matches in States without boxing commissions

(a) No person may arrange, promote, organize, produce, or fight in a professional boxing match held in a State that does not have a boxing commission unless the match is supervised by a boxing commission from another State and subject to the most recent version of the recommended regulatory guidelines certified and published by the Association of Boxing Commissions as well as any additional relevant professional boxing regulations and requirements of such other State.

(b) For the purpose of this chapter, if no State commission is available to supervise a boxing match according to subsection (a), then—

(1) the match may not be held unless it is supervised by an association of boxing commissions to which at least a majority of the States belong; and

(2) any reporting or other requirement relating to a supervising commission allowed under this section shall be deemed to refer to the entity described in paragraph (1).

(Pub. L. 104–272, §4, Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3310; Pub. L. 106–210, §7(e), May 26, 2000, 114 Stat. 328.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–210 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1997, see section 23 of Pub. L. 104–272, set out as a note under section 6301 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the third
quarter 10-QSB for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2000 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,381,373
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  555,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                    56,914
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,102,412
<PP&E>                                       2,782,144
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,650,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,094,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          774,066
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       674,383
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,386,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,094,288
<SALES>                                      2,519,597
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,519,597
<CGS>                                        1,024,697
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,024,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,951,686
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (256,846)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (427,572)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,285
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (438,857)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (438,857)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
Fw: Test Results from Albemarle A 1 -Melting Point

Paul Campanella to: John Schaeffer 03/29/2012 03:20 PM

Answer from Daniel to accept this test.

----- Forwarded by Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US on 03/29/2012 03:19 PM -----

From: Chuantung Lin/DC/USEPA/US

To: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Tracy Williamson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Myrta Christian/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 03/29/2012 01:14 PM

Subject: Re: Test Results from Albemarle A 1 -Melting Point

Paul,

I have reviewed the submitted M.P. data from the sponsor of this chemical. The measured value of M.P. 

is below 0o

C (i.e., -21.60oC) which indicating the substance is a liquid form at the room temperature. It is 

the freezing point temperature and could be used as the M.P. to fulfill the M.P. data endpoint requirement. 

Therefore, this value is acceptable to meet HPV 2 testing rules requirement.

Please let me know if you have further question on this matter.

Thanks!

Daniel

Paul Campanella Daniel , the attachment contains data for the A1... 03/28/2012 03:18:02 PM

From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US

To: Chuantung Lin/DC/USEPA/US

Date: 03/28/2012 03:18 PM

Subject: Test Results from Albemarle A 1 -Melting Point

Daniel , the attachment contains data for the A1 Melting point testing submitted by Albemarle on CASRN 

68479-98-1. Please review for acceptability. The remain information will be assessed by RAD.

HPV 2 Albemarle Albemarle Test Data A1 CAS 68479-98-1 68479-98-1 .pdf
§ 382.203 Annual charges under the Interstate Commerce Act. ( a ) The adjusted costs of administration of the oil regulatory program will be assessed against each oil pipeline company based on the proportion of the total operation revenues of each oil pipeline company for the immediately preceding calendar year to the sum of the operating revenues for the immediately preceding calendar year of all oil pipeline companies being assessed annual charges.
( b ) No oil pipeline company's annual charge may exceed a maximum charge established each year by the Commission to equal 6.339 percent of the adjusted costs of administration of the oil regulatory program. The maximum charge will be rounded to the nearest $1000. For every company with an annual charge determined to be above the maximum charge, that company's annual charge will be set at the maximum charge, and any amount above the maximum charge will be reapportioned to the remaining companies. The reapportionment will be computed using the method outlined in paragraph (a) of this section (but excluding any company whose annual charge is already set at the maximum amount). This procedure will be repeated until no company's annual charge exceeds the maximum charge.
# C_2011055EN.01002801.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/28

---

Action brought on 14 December 2010 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission

(Case T-575/10)

2011/C 55/50

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. (Gijón, Spain) (represented by F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2010 amending the decision of 30 June 2010 (C(2010) 4837 final in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2010 amending the decision of 30 June 2010 (C(2010) 4837 final in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel); and

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

| — | first plea, based on breach of the principle of inalterability of the acts of the institutions and of the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

first plea, based on breach of the principle of inalterability of the acts of the institutions and of the principle of good administration.

| — | second plea, based on the fact that the amended decision breached essential procedural requirements, in that it was adopted without the mandatory consultation of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions, as required pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1). |
| --- | --- |

—

second plea, based on the fact that the amended decision breached essential procedural requirements, in that it was adopted without the mandatory consultation of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions, as required pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

| — | third plea, in the alternative, based on breach of the principle of non-discrimination in the fixing of the conditions of the payment of the fine and breach of the obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based. |
| --- | --- |

—

third plea, in the alternative, based on breach of the principle of non-discrimination in the fixing of the conditions of the payment of the fine and breach of the obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based.

---
#### § 367.2320 Account 232, Accounts payable.

This account must include all amounts payable by the service company within one year that are not provided for in other accounts.
§ 381.99 Official retention and rejection tags. The official marks for use in post-mortem inspection and identification of adulterated products, insanitary equipment and facilities are: ( a ) A paper tag (a portion of Form MP-35) bearing the legend “U.S. Retained” for use on poultry or poultry products under this section.
( b ) A paper tag (another portion of Form C&MS 510) bearing the legend “U.S. Rejected” for use on equipment, utensils, rooms and compartments under this section.
[64 FR 56417, Oct. 20, 1999]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40300

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO CAMPOS-CONTRERAS, also known as Pedro Mauricio CamposContreras,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-1011-1

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Pedro Campos-Contreras appeals the sentence

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being found in the United States

after a previous deportation. He claims that the district court plainly erred in

imposing a 16-level enhancement for committing a crime of violence, pursuant

to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), based on Campos-Contreras’s Texas convictions

for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft. He contends that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 22, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-40300 Document: 00512152119 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2013
No. 12-40300

because his convictions fall under Texas’s unique “greater right to possession”

theory, they do not constitute generic burglary convictions under Taylor v.

United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), and therefore were not convictions for

burglary of a dwelling under § 2L1.2. As Campos-Contreras did not raise this

objection in the district court, our review is limited to plain error. See United

States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494, 497-99 (5th Cir. 2012); see also

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

We recently rejected this same contention in United States v.

Morales-Mota, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 104935 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2013) (No.

12-40491) (affirming a 16-level sentencing enhancement under §

2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation under

§ 30.02(a)). Accordingly, the district court’s 16-level enhancement in this case

was not error, plain or otherwise.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-40300 Document: 00512152119 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2013
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Actuate Corporation (the
Company) for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge on the date hereof, the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 7, 2008                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                             
|/s/ Peter I. Cittadini                                                                                                       
|Peter I. Cittadini President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                                       
|                                                                                                                             
|/s/ Daniel A. Gaudreau                                                                                                       
|Daniel A. Gaudreau Senior Vice President, Operations and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# C_2013009EN.01002401.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/24

---

Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Muhamad Mugraby v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-581/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Action for a declaration of failure to act - Infringement of fundamental rights and of the Association Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Lebanon - Failure of the Council and of the Commission to take measures against the Republic of Lebanon - Action for damages - Appeal clearly unfounded and clearly inadmissible)

2013/C 9/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Muhamad Mugraby (represented by: S. Delhaye, avocate)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2011 in Case T-292/09 Mugraby v Council and Commission dismissing an action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Council and the Commission unlawfully omitted to take a decision on the then applicant’s request concerning the adoption of measures against Lebanon on account of the alleged violation by the latter of the then applicant’s fundamental rights and of the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon, and dismissing, moreover, an action seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the then applicant as a result of those Community institutions’ failure to act

Mugraby

Council and Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Mugraby shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Mugraby shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
### §7712. Application to wireless

#### (a) Effect on other law

Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to preclude or override the applicability of section 227 of title 47 or the rules prescribed under section 6102 of this title.

#### (b) FCC rulemaking

The Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, shall promulgate rules within 270 days to protect consumers from unwanted mobile service commercial messages. The Federal Communications Commission, in promulgating the rules, shall, to the extent consistent with subsection (c)—

(1) provide subscribers to commercial mobile services the ability to avoid receiving mobile service commercial messages unless the subscriber has provided express prior authorization to the sender, except as provided in paragraph (3);

(2) allow recipients of mobile service commercial messages to indicate electronically a desire not to receive future mobile service commercial messages from the sender;

(3) take into consideration, in determining whether to subject providers of commercial mobile services to paragraph (1), the relationship that exists between providers of such services and their subscribers, but if the Commission determines that such providers should not be subject to paragraph (1), the rules shall require such providers, in addition to complying with the other provisions of this chapter, to allow subscribers to indicate a desire not to receive future mobile service commercial messages from the provider—

(A) at the time of subscribing to such service; and

(B) in any billing mechanism; and

(4) determine how a sender of mobile service commercial messages may comply with the provisions of this chapter, considering the unique technical aspects, including the functional and character limitations, of devices that receive such messages.

#### (c) Other factors considered

The Federal Communications Commission shall consider the ability of a sender of a commercial electronic mail message to reasonably determine that the message is a mobile service commercial message.

#### (d) Mobile service commercial message defined

In this section, the term "mobile service commercial message" means a commercial electronic mail message that is transmitted directly to a wireless device that is utilized by a subscriber of commercial mobile service (as such term is defined in section 332(d) of title 47) in connection with such service.

(Pub. L. 108–187, §14, Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2718.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b)(3), (4), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 108–187, Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2699, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7701 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 2004, see section 16 of Pub. L. 108–187, set out as a note under section 7701 of this title.
#     People with Substance Use or Mental Health Issues

### Categories Related to People with Substance Use or Mental Health Issues

                      - Alcohol
                      - Illegal Drugs
                      - Age Group
                      - Stimulants
                      - Sedatives
                      - Pain Relievers
                      - Inhalants
                      - Racial and Ethnic Groups
                      - Populations of Interest
                      - Gender
                      - Over-the-Counter Drugs
                      - Hallucinogens
                      - Tobacco
                      - Young Adults as Population Group
                      - Nicotine

Latest In People with Substance Use or Mental Health Issues

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN): Findings From Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, 2022

Annual Report : Drug Abuse Warning Network - June 20, 2023

2020 NSDUH Annual National Report

Annual Report : National Survey on Drug Use and Health - October 25, 2021

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN): Findings From Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, 2021

Annual Report : Drug Abuse Warning Network - December 14, 2022

Preliminary Findings from Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, 2021  

Annual Report : Drug Abuse Warning Network - May 31, 2022

View All