alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1c.2 Prohibition of electric energy market manipulation. ( a ) It shall be unlawful for any entity, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of electric energy or the purchase or sale of transmission services subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, ( 1 ) To use or employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
( 2 ) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
( 3 ) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any entity.
( b ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a private right of action.
### §6313. Relationship with State law

Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a State from adopting or enforcing supplemental or more stringent laws or regulations not inconsistent with this chapter, or criminal, civil, or administrative fines for violations of such laws or regulations.

(Pub. L. 104–272, §22, formerly §14, Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3313; renumbered §22, Pub. L. 106–210, §4(1), May 26, 2000, 114 Stat. 322.)

#### **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.
### §330c. Authority of Secretary

#### (a) Information; reports and records; inspection; availability of data from any Federal agency as limitation of authority

The Secretary may obtain from any person whose activities relate to weather modification by rule, subpena, or otherwise such information in the form of testimony, books, records, or other writings, may require the keeping and furnishing of such reports and records, and may make such inspection of the books, records, and other writings and premises and property of any person as may be deemed necessary or appropriate by him to carry out the provisions of this chapter, but this authority shall not be exercised to obtain any information with respect to which adequate and authoritative data are available from any Federal agency.

#### (b) Noncompliance; application of Attorney General; jurisdiction; orders; contempts

In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena served upon any person pursuant to this section, the district court of the United States for any district in which such person is found or resides or transacts business, upon application by the Attorney General, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such person to appear and give testimony or to appear and produce documents, or both; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof.

(Pub. L. 92–205, §4, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 736.)
§ 1317.500 Employment. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in employment, or recruitment, consideration, or selection therefor, whether full-time or part-time, under any education program or activity operated by a recipient that receives Federal financial assistance.
( 2 ) A recipient shall make all employment decisions in any education program or activity operated by such recipient in a nondiscriminatory manner and shall not limit, segregate, or classify applicants or employees in any way that could adversely affect any applicant's or employee's employment opportunities or status because of sex.
( 3 ) A recipient shall not enter into any contractual or other relationship which directly or indirectly has the effect of subjecting employees or students to discrimination prohibited by §§ 1317.500 through 1317.550, including relationships with employment and referral agencies, with labor unions, and with organizations providing or administering fringe benefits to employees of the recipient.
( 4 ) A recipient shall not grant preferences to applicants for employment on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preferences has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of these Title IX regulations.
( b ) *Application.* The provisions of §§ 1317.500 through 1317.550 apply to: ( 1 ) Recruitment, advertising, and the process of application for employment;
( 2 ) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, consideration for and award of tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, application of nepotism policies, right of return from layoff, and rehiring;
( 3 ) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation, and changes in compensation;
( 4 ) Job assignments, classifications, and structure, including position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;
( 5 ) The terms of any collective bargaining agreement;
( 6 ) Granting and return from leaves of absence, leave for pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, leave for persons of either sex to care for children or dependents, or any other leave;
( 7 ) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the recipient;
( 8 ) Selection and financial support for training, including apprenticeship, professional meetings, conferences, and other related activities, selection for tuition assistance, selection for sabbaticals and leaves of absence to pursue training;
( 9 ) Employer-sponsored activities, including social or recreational programs; and
( 10 ) Any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.
#### § 1311.12 [Reserved]
#### § 392.2 Definition of petition.

For purposes of this part, a “petition” is a written request to issue, amend, or repeal a regulation administered by FSIS. A request to issue, amend, or repeal a document that interprets a regulation administered by FSIS may also be submitted by petition.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Del Norte Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Crescent City, California. The committee meeting is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-                              ( print page 13125)                            Determination (SRS) Act (Pub.L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.                    

# DATES:

The meeting will be held March 28, 2011, from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Del Norte County Unified School District, Redwood Room 301, West Washington Boulevard, Crescent City, California, 95531.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Adam Dellinger, Committee Coordinator, Six Rivers National Forest, at (707) 441-3569; e-mail                         *adellinger@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Del Norte County RAC will discuss how to monitor recommended projects and will vote on projects to recommend for funding. The meeting is open to the public and there will also be a public comment opportunity.

Dated: March 2, 2011.

Tyrone Kelley,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2011-5453 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
#### § 77.23 Interstate movement from accredited-free States and zones.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, captive cervids that originate in an accredited-free State or zone may be moved interstate in accordance with 9 CFR part 86 and without further restriction under this part.

[78 FR 2066, Jan. 9, 2013]
# C_2011013EN.01001601.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 July 2010 — Krasimir Asparuhov Estov, Monika Lucien Ivanova and ‘KEMKO INTERNATIONAL’ EAD v Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria

(Case C-339/10)

()

2011/C 13/26

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Krasimir Asparuhov Estov, Monika Lyusien Ivanova and ‘KEMKO INTERNATIONAL’ EAD

Applicants:

Defendant: Ministerski savet na Republika Bulgaria

Defendant:

By order of 12 November 2010, the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that it clearly has no jurisdiction to rule on the questions referred by the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria).

---
#### J. F. Hoover, et al. v. Thomas L. Holland, et al., Executors.

1. Judgment by *confession—power and duty of court with respect to opening.*Courts of law exercise an equitable jurisdiction over-judgments entered by confession under a-power of attorney or cognovit, and such equitable jurisdiction should be exercised liberally.

2. Judgment by *confession—when, should he opened.*Where it appears that the note upon which the judgment was entered was old and had payments indorsed thereon made after ..the statute had run against it, coupled with a delay of ten years after the death of the , payee in entering judgment, the court should open up the judgment.

Judgment by confession. Error to the' County Court of Tazewell County; the Hon. George C. Rider, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the November term, 1904.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 20, 1905.

William A. Potts, for plaintiffs in error.

A. R. Rich, for defendants in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

On July 14, 1899, judgment by confession was entered in vacation, in the County Court of Tazewell County, in favor of defendants in error and against plaintiffs in error for $156.96 and costs, upon two notes and cognovits, one for the sum of $50 bearing date March 18, 1875, payable sixty days thereafter with interest at ten per cent, per annum, and one for the sum of $20 bearing date of November 22, 1875, payable thirty days thereafter, with interest at ten per cent, per annum. Each of said notes bore indorsements, as follows: “ Received on the within note five dollars June, 1886. Received on the within as interest $5 this July 16th, 1889.” Lawson Holland, the payee in said notes, died July 27, 1889.

At the first law term of the County Court after plaintiffs in error received actual notice of said judgment, they filed their motion to have the same vacated and to be permitted *5to plead to the merits of the action. The court denied the motion, and this writ of error'is prosecuted to reverse such ruling.

Courts of law exercise an equitable jurisdiction over judgments entered by confession under a power of attorney or cognovit, and such equitable jurisdiction should be exercised liberally. Condon v. Besse, 86 Ill. 159; Wyman v. Yeomans, 84 Ill. 403.

The facts disclosed by the affidavit of George Holland, who appears to be a competent witness, together with such as appear upon the face of the record—the antiquity of the notes, the indorsements thereon of payments, purporting to have been made after ’the statute had run as a bar, and the delay of ten years after the death of the payee, in entering up the judgment—should have appealed irresistibly to the court to grant the motion and allow appellants to plead and make their defense upon the merits.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
# C_2010134EN.01004801.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/48

---

Action brought on 30 March 2010 — Ben Ri Electrónica v OHIM — Sacopa (LT LIGHT-THECNO)

(Case T-143/10)

2010/C 134/78

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ben Ri Electrónica SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, 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: Sacopa SAU (Sant Jaume de Llierca (Girona), Spain)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM and reject Community mark No 4 520 193; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM and reject Community mark No 4 520 193;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sacopa SAU

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word element ‘LT’ (Application No 4 520 193) for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark (No 13 375) and Spanish figurative marks (Nos 1 719 729 and 1 719 730) composed of the juxtaposition of and ‘L’ and a ‘T’ superimposed on a circle for goods in Classes 9 and 11.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition.

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
#### STATE v. McKOY

No. 449P89

Case below: 92 N.C.App. 115

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 18 January 1990.
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.29 Consolidation or joinder. ( a ) *Explanation.* ( 1 ) Consolidation may occur where two or more parties have cases which should be united because they contain identical or similar issues or in such other circumstances as justice requires.
( 2 ) Joinder may occur where one person has two or more petitions pending and they are united for consideration. For example, a single petitioner who has one petition pending challenging a 30-day suspension and another petition pending challenging a subsequent dismissal might have the cases joined.
( b ) *Action by administrative judge.* An administrative judge may consolidate or join cases on their own initiative or on the motion of a party if to do so would expedite processing of the cases and not adversely affect the interests of the parties.
[58 FR 61992, Nov. 23, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 69301, Dec. 12, 2003; 89 FR 51399, June 18, 2024]
Gross Liability Gross Premium Gross Indemnity Retained Liability Retained Premium Retained Ind

 572,467,957 14,280,308,897 150,279,291 6,510,480,434 258,130,968 71,5

Footnote:Amounts shown are for policies that have reached the Premium Billing Date according to the actuarial documents. 

2021 Livestock Reinsurance Data

National Totals

As of 03/2024

Page 1 of 1
# C_2013046EN.01000902.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — Bavaria NV v European Commission

(Case C-445/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Dutch beer market - Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Duration of the administrative procedure - Level of the fine)

2013/C 46/16

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Bavaria NV (represented by: O. Brouwer, P.W. Schepens and N. Al-Ani, advocaten)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Slotboom, advocat)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-235/07 Bavaria v Commission by which the General Court annulled Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766 — Dutch beer market) in so far as the European Commission found that Bavaria NV had participated in an infringement consisting in the occasional coordination of commercial conditions, other than prices, offered to individual consumers in the on-trade segment in the Netherlands

Bavaria

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Bavaria NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bavaria NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

1

---
§ 500.9 Procedures for the filing of appeals. ( a ) Any establishment subject to Federal inspection or facility under voluntary inspection and adversely affected by a decision or action of an inspector or other Agency employee related to an inspection activity mandated under the FMIA, PPIA, or EPIA or related to voluntary reimbursable inspection services allowed under the AMA may appeal the decision or action. Initial appeals of an applicable decision or action, as well as subsequent appeals of denied appeals through final Agency action, must be made within 30 calendar days after receipt of written notification of the contested decision or action. Appeals may be supported by any argument or evidence that the appellant may wish to offer as to why the contested decision or action should be reconsidered.
( b ) Any initial appeal of a decision or action of an inspector or other Agency employee must be made to his/her immediate supervisor having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal.
[87 FR 63424, Oct. 19, 2022]
128 STAT. 2884 PUBLIC LAW 113–248—DEC. 18, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3044 (S. 212): 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–553 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 113–184 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works) 

accompanying S. 212. 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Sept. 15, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 11, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–248 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, Mississippi. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF YELLOW CREEK PORT PROPERTIES. 

In accordance with section 4(k) of the Tennessee Valley 

Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c(k)), Congress approves the 

conveyance by the Tennessee Valley Authority, on behalf of the 

United States, to the State of Mississippi of the Yellow Creek 

Port properties owned by the United States and in the custody 

of the Authority at Iuka, Mississippi, as of the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

Approved December 18, 2014. 

Effective date. 

Dec. 18, 2014 

[H.R. 3044] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
# C_2011340EN.01002201.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/22

---

Order of the General Court of 20 September 2011 — Land Wien v Commission

(Case T-267/10) (1)

1

(Nuclear power - Application initiating proceedings - Action for annulment - Decision of the Commission not to take any further action in respect of a complaint concerning the project for extension of blocks of a nuclear power plant - Action for a declaration of failure to act - Failure by the Commission to send all documents requested relevant to that project - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 340/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Land Wien (Austria) (represented by: W.-G. Schärf, lawyer)

Applicant: Land

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, M. Patakia and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Firstly, in essence, annulment of the Commission decision of 25 March 2010 not to take any further action in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning the project for extension of blocks 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia and, secondly, an action in respect of failure to act, within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission failed to grant the applicant full access to the documents requested relevant to that project, in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The Land Wien is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Land Wien is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

1

---