alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## AMERICAN AIRLINES
**DELTA AIR LINES**
**UNITED AIR LINES**
**US AIRWAYS**

July 27, 2010

Esta Rosenberg Chief, U.S. Carrier Licensing Division Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20520

RE: United/US Airways Temporary Brazil Frequency Reallocation and US Airways Exemption Amendment (DOT-OST-2010-0183 and DOT-OST-2009-0003); Delta Brazil Frequency Application (DOT-OST-2010-0186); American Regional Brazil Frequency Application (DOT-OST-2010-0188)___________________________

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., United Air Lines, Inc., and US Airways, Inc. wish to inform the Departmentthat none of the carriers intends to object to the abovecaptioned applications of any of the others. The proposals submitted will enable American and Delta to introduce beneficial new services for the upcoming peak winter season in Brazil and US Airways to begin new services to Sao Paulo in 2011. We have also polled all other U.S.-Brazil carriers and determined that there are no objections. In light the uncontested status of theapplications, and the need to plan and market these new services, we jointly urge the Department to act quickly and favorably on all of these requests.
# C_2012250EN.01000701.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

(Case C-177/11) (1)

1

(Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Article 3(2)(b) - Margin of discretion of the Member States)

2012/C 250/11

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton

Applicant:

Defendants: Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) and Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Condition, for carrying out an assessment of the environmental effects of a given plan or programme, that it may have significant effects on a special area of conservation — Discretion of the Member States

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to make a particular plan subject to an environmental assessment depends on the preconditions requiring an assessment under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, including the condition that the plan may have a significant effect on the site concerned, being met in respect of that plan. The examination carried out to determine whether that latter condition is fulfilled is necessarily limited to the question as to whether it can be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that that plan or project will have a significant effect on the site concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

1

---
# C_2010288EN.01006202.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/62

---

Action brought on 7 September 2010 — Amor v OHIM — Jablonex Group (AMORIKE)

(Case T-371/10)

()

(2010/C 288/112)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Amor GmbH (Obertshausen, Germany) (represented by: M. Hartmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jablonex Group a.s. (Jablonec nad Nisou, Czech Republic)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 June 2010 in Case R 619/2009-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 June 2010 in Case R 619/2009-2;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Jablonex Group a.s.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AMORIKE’ for goods and services in Classes 14, 25 and 26.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Amor GmbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Internationally-registered word mark ‘AMOR’ for goods in Class 14; Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘Amor’ for goods in Classes 14 and 18; national figurative marks containing the word element ‘Amor’ for goods in Class 25, and national figurative marks which are orange in colour and which contain the word element ‘Amor’ for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18, 35 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected.

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

---

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

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 28.15 Scope and policy.

The rules in this subpart apply to actions brought by any person, except as otherwise provided in § 28.17 (concerning internal petitions of Board employees). These rules also apply to actions brought by the General Counsel, except as otherwise provided in subpart G (concerning corrective action, disciplinary and stay proceedings). It is the policy of the Board that these rules shall be applied in a manner which expedites the processing of each case, but with due regard to the rights of all parties.

[58 FR 61992, Nov. 23, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 69299, Dec. 12, 2003]
#### § 367.27 Billing procedures.

Charges for services to associate public-utility companies must be made monthly with sufficient information and in sufficient detail to permit such company, where applicable, to identify and classify the charge in terms of the system of accounts prescribed by the regulatory authorities to which it is subject. The information provided to associate public-utility companies must provide a summary of the accounts by service provided and showing the charges, classified as direct cost, indirect cost, and compensation for use of capital.
### §69d. Fur products imported into United States

#### (a) Necessity of proper labelling; additional information

Fur products imported into the United States shall be labeled so as not to be misbranded within the meaning of section 69b of this title; and all invoices of fur products and furs required under title IV of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended [19 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.], shall set forth, in addition to the matters therein specified, information conforming with the requirements of section 69c(b) of this title, which information shall be included in the invoices prior to their certification under the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended [19 U.S.C. 1202 et seq.].

#### (b) Violations of Federal Trade Commission Act

The falsification of, or failure to set forth, said information in said invoices, or the falsification or perjury of the consignee's declaration provided for in the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended [19 U.S.C. 1202 et seq.], insofar as it relates to said information, shall be an unfair method of competition, and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.]; and any person who falsifies, or fails to set forth, said information in said invoices, or who falsifies or perjures said consignee's declaration insofar as it relates to said information, may thenceforth be prohibited by the Commission from importing, or participating in the importation of, any fur products or furs into the United States except upon filing bond with the Secretary of the Treasury in a sum double the value of said fur products and furs, and any duty thereon, conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of this section.

#### (c) Verified statement of compliance

A verified statement from the manufacturer, producer of, or dealer in, imported fur products and furs showing information required under the provisions of this subchapter may be required under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

(Aug. 8, 1951, ch. 298, §6, 65 Stat. 178.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is act June 17, 1930, ch. 497, 46 Stat. 590, which is classified generally to chapter 4 (§1202 et seq.) of Title 19, Customs Duties. Title IV of the Tariff Act of 1930 is classified generally to subtitle III (§1401 et seq.) of chapter 4 of Title 19. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1654 of Title 19 and Tables.

The Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is defined in section 69 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of Federal Trade Commission, with certain exceptions, to Chairman of such Commission, see Reorg. Plan No. 8 of 1950, §1, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3175, 64 Stat. 1264, set out under section 41 of this title.
Exhibit




Exhibit 10.38




NON-EMPLOYEE INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2014




The following table provides information on the compensation of Puget Sound Energy’s nonemployee independent directors approved by the Board of Directors on June 26, 2014 and continuing until modified. Puget Sound Energy also reimburses directors for the out-of-pocket expenses of attending meetings.  Directors who are employed by Puget Sound Energy or the investor consortium do not receive any compensation for their Board activities.




	
				
	DIRECTOR COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE ON THE BOARDS 
OF PUGET SOUND ENERGY AND ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES

	Quarterly Board Chair Retainer
	

	$13,750
	


	Quarterly Board Member Retainer
	27,500
	


	Additional Quarterly Retainer for Audit Committee Chair
	2,500
	


	Additional Quarterly Retainer for Audit Committee Members
	1,000
	


	Additional quarterly retainer for Compensation and Leadership Development Committee Chair
	2,000
	


	Additional Quarterly Retainer for Governance and Public Affairs Committee Chair
	1,500
	


	Fee for Each Board and Committee Meeting Attended
	1,600
	


	Fee for Each Telephonic Meeting Attended Lasting 60 Minutes or Less
	800
	







In addition to the compensation listed in the table above, the Company’s nonemployee directors are eligible to participate in Puget Sound Energy’s Deferred Compensation Plan for Nonemployee Directors.  Directors annually may elect to defer all or a part of their fees payable in cash.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND ITS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       3,838,064
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,264
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,900,328
<PP&E>                                         239,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                 187,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,489,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,266,364
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                        38,232
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,184,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,489,508
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,350,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (93,917)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,574,076)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,574,076)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,574,076)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

NASEDRA K. LUMPKIN , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 2781

[ June 10, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Caroline C. Shepherd

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2009

- CF

- 005842

- AXXX

- MB

.

Nasedra K. Lumpkin, Jasper, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

A

ffirmed.

L EVINE , C.J., K UNTZ and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2012366EN.01003202.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS)

(Case T-569/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS - Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Application for alteration - Admissibility)

2012/C 366/62

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Panrico SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 838/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico SA and Bimbo SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bimbo SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bimbo SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by OHIM;

| 3. | Orders Panrico SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Panrico SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.

1

---
Wdesk | Exhibit






Exhibit 10.1 








MDU Resources Group, Inc. 
Jason L. Vollmer 2016 Performance Share Award Opportunity Chart 


	
								
	  
	  
	Threshold 
	Target 
	Maximum 

	Name 
	Title 
	Shares 
 (#) 
	Dividend 
Equivalents 
($) 
	Shares 
(#) 
	Dividend 
Equivalents 
($) 
	Shares 
 (#) 
	Dividend 
Equivalents 
($) 

	Jason L. Vollmer 
	Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer 
	953 
	2,144 
	4,767
	10,726 
	9,534
	21,452
# C_2012032EN.01002502.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 — De Luca v Commission

(Case T-563/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Cross-appeal - Staff case - Officials - Appointment to a post in a higher function group following an open competition - Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional provisions - Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

2012/C 32/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Patrizia De Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, Agent) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 in Case F-20/06 De Luca v Commission [2010] ECR I-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

De Luca

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the cross-appeals. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the cross-appeals.

| 2. | Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 in Case F-20/06 De Luca v Commission [2010] ECR I-0000. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 in Case F-20/06 De Luca v Commission [2010] ECR I-0000.

| 3. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

| 4. | The costs are reserved |
| --- | --- |

4.

The costs are reserved

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.

1

---
§ 16.22 Application for an exemption by a licensee with a minor or minor part license for a project not subject to sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies to an existing licensee with a license for a project not subject to sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act.
( b ) *Information requirements.* An applicant for an exemption must meet the requirements of, and will be processed in accordance with, subpart K or subpart J of part 4 of this chapter, and §§ 16.5, 16.8, 16.9(b)(2) (except the requirement to comply with §§ 4.41, 4.51, or 4.61 of this chapter), §§ 16.9(b)(3), 16.9(b)(4), 16.9(c), and 16.9(d).
( c ) *Standard of comparison.* If an application for subsequent license is filed in competition with an application for exemption by an existing licensee, the Commission will decide among competing applications in accordance with the standards of § 16.13 and not in accordance with the provisions of § 4.37(d)(2) of this chapter.
[Order 513, 54 FR 23806, June 2, 1989, as amended by Order 699, 72 FR 45324, Aug. 14, 2007]
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Expands Access to Capital for Very Small Rural Businesses

WASHINGTON, May 14, 2021 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced that it has 

implemented a series of actions to make it easier for very small rural businesses to get access to capital. 

The Department published a final rule outlining changes to the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program

(RMAP). The program provides loans and grants to microenterprise development organizations to help them 

establish revolving loan programs to assist microenterprises, businesses with 10 or fewer full-time employees. It 

also provides annual funding to development organizations to conduct training and provide technical assistance 

to microloan borrowers.

USDA made the improvements to implement changes required in the 2018 Farm Bill and to make the program 

more effective, more user-friendly and more consistent with other USDA business programs. Among other 

things, these improvements:

• Allow microlenders to receive their initial technical assistance grant in an amount up to 25 percent of 

their new loan amount . The maximum loan amount remains at $500,000. The previous grant limit was 

25 percent of the first $400,000 plus 5 percent of the amount over $400,000.

• Allow a microlender’s technical assistance funds to be replenished annually to a minimum of 20 percent

of its outstanding loans to small businesses, not to exceed 25 percent of its loan balance, subject to the 

availability of appropriated funds. The maximum percentage is not changed. Previously, there was no 

minimum percentage of grant funds to a microlender.

• Give microlenders the discretion to request loan funds more often than quarterly to meet the 

microlender’s loan demand.

• Change the definitions of “close relative”, “Indian tribe” and “rural or rural area” to match the 

definitions in other USDA Rural Development programs.

• Increase program eligibility by reducing the minimum application priority score to be eligible for 

program funding.

• Add clarifying language emphasizing that the total outstanding loan balance from a lender to any one 

microborrower may not exceed $50,000. 

The changes take effect May 14, 2021. For additional information, see page 26348 of the May 14, 2021 Federal 

Register. Program applications are accepted on a continuous basis in Rural Development State Offices which 

can be found at: https://rd.usda.gov/about-rd/state-offices

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.
### §77bbbb. Separability

If any provision of this subchapter or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, the remainder of the subchapter and the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.

(May 27, 1933, ch. 38, title III, §328, as added Aug. 3, 1939, ch. 411, 53 Stat. 1177.)
### [§2500. Renumbered §4801]