alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012073EN.01001102.xml

| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/11

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Connoisseur Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat

(Case C-69/11) (1)

1

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 11.A(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Costs not charged by the taxable person)

2012/C 73/19

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Connoisseur Belgium BVBA

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Interpretation of Article 11.A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Hiring-out of pleasure craft — Agreement on the allocation of costs between the undertaking providing the craft for hire and the undertaking which hires them — Possibility of charging certain costs to the hiring undertaking — No charge made — National provision requiring VAT to be paid on those costs which are not charged

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 11.A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, value added tax is not due on costs or amounts which could contractually have been charged to the other contracting party but which were not so charged.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---
#### ADKINS, Movant, v. PATTON, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 9, 1939.

Allen & Tackett for movant.

Hill & Hobson, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied; judgment affirmed.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲ ▲

★

▲

▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/29

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
§ 401.93 The record for decision-making. ( a ) *Written submission.* In addition to the information required by the Commission, any possible violator shall be entitled to submit in writing any other information that it desires to make available to the Commission before it shall act. The Executive Director may require documents to be certified or otherwise authenticated and statements to be verified. The Commission may also receive written submissions from any other persons as to whether a violation has occurred and the adverse consequences resulting from a violation of the Commission's Compact or its rules, regulations and orders.
( b ) *Presentation to the Commission.* At the date set in the Notice, the possible violator shall have the opportunity to supplement its written presentation before the Commission by any oral statement it wishes to present and shall be prepared to respond to any questions from the Commission or its staff or to the statements submitted by persons affected by the possible violation.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 806 

To prohibit the collection of data or information generated on the internet. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2019 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit the collection of data or information generated 

on the internet. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Own Your Own Data 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION GEN7 ERATED ON INTERNET. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Each individual owns and has an 

9 exclusive property right in the data that an individual gen10 erates on the internet under section 5 of the Federal 

11 Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45). 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 806 IS

1 (b) SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES.— 

2 (1) IN GENERAL.—Each social media company 

3 shall— 

4 (A) have a prominently and conspicuously 

5 displayed icon each user may click to obtain a 

6 copy of the user’s data with any analysis of the 

7 user’s data performed by the social media com8 pany; 

9 (B) have a prominently and conspicuously 

10 displayed icon each user may click to easily ex11 port the user’s data with any analysis of the 

12 user’s data performed by the social media com13 pany; 

14 (C) require that each user, during the reg15 istration of an account, knowingly and willfully 

16 enter into a licensing agreement— 

17 (i) that uses plain language that a 

18 reasonable person of average intelligence 

19 can understand the first time the person 

20 reads or hears the licensing agreement; 

21 (ii) in which the user agrees to license 

22 the user’s data to the social media com23 pany; and 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 806 IS

1 (iii) that is no longer than 500 words, 

2 using a measure of 6 characters to a word; 

3 and 

4 (D) have an icon each user may click to 

5 cancel immediately the license agreement. 

6 (2) REGULATIONS.—The Federal Trade Com7 mission shall promulgate regulations carrying out 

8 this subsection, which shall be approved by Con9 gress. 

10 (c) ENFORCEMENT.—The Federal Trade Commission 

11 shall enforce the provisions of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit


Exhibit 10.63.2





Iowa State University Research Park Corporation
2711 South Loop Drive, Suite 4050
Ames, Iowa 50010-8648


Memorandum of Agreement


DATE:        September 21, 2015


TO:        Carl Langren, VP Finance
NewLink Genetics Corporation
2503 S. Loop Drive, Suite 5100
Ames, IA 50010


FROM:        Steven T. Carter, President


		
	RE:
	ADDENDUM TO THE LEASE BETWEEN ISU RESEARCH PARK CORPORATION AND NEWLINK GENETICS CORPORATION DATED AUGUTST 22, 2005.




The following information constitutes additions to the Lease Agreement between ISU Research Park Corporation (Landlord) and NewLink Genetics Corporation (Tenant).  Upon signatures of appropriate representatives of Landlord and Tenant affixed to this Memorandum, this Memorandum becomes a part of that Lease Agreement dated August 22, 2005.


Tenant has requested and Landlord agrees to extend the lease for Suite 3900 (±3,147 rsf), in the following manner:




Sq. Ft.        Sq. Ft.        Monthly    Monthly    Annual           Annual
Base        Operating    Base        Operating    Base           Operating
Term        Rents        Rents        Rents        Rents        Rents           Rents


8/1/2015-
1/31/2018    $12.75        Actual        $3,343.69    Actual        $40,124.28    Actual




Tenant leases the space as is.  Any modifications will be at the Tenant’s sole expense.  Landlord agrees to release Tenant from this lease obligation upon Tenant's move into another facility at the ISU Research Park.  Gas & water usage, as well as utility costs for the HVAC system, will be prorated and invoiced monthly.  Electricity is metered separately & is invoiced directly from the provider.  Subject to the terms of this Memorandum, Tenant agrees that all terms and conditions of the August 22, 2005 Lease and those described in this Memorandum shall remain in force.













Exhibit 10.63.2




NewLink Genetics Corporation
Page Two
September 21, 2015








Please sign and return both originals to my office by October 9, 2015 if you concur with the above terms.  We will then send a fully executed copy for your records.




AGREED


FOR                            FOR
NewLink Genetics Corporation            ISU Research Park Corporation
/s/ Carl Langren                    /s/ Steven Carter
VP Finance                        Director
Title                            Title


September 21, 2015                    September 22, 2015            
Date                            Date
§ 81.1 Purpose and scope of part. ( a ) This part implements the policy of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) with respect to the public availability of GAO records, except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. While GAO is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), GAO's disclosure policy follows the spirit of the act consistent with its duties and functions and responsibility to the Congress. Application of this act to GAO is not to be inferred from the provisions of these regulations.
( b ) GAO published testimonies, reports, decisions, special publications, or listings of publications are not included within the scope of this part. These documents may be obtained from the GAO Web site, *http://www.gao.gov*, or by telephone at 202-512-6000, TDD 202-512-2537, or 1-866-801-7077 (toll free). These publications may be downloaded free of charge from the GAO Web site. Paper copies requested from GAO are subject to a printing, shipping, and handling fee.
( c ) Requests for all other GAO records are within the scope of this part and should be submitted to GAO as directed in paragraph (a) of § 81.4.
[68 FR 33832, June 6, 2003, as amended at 76 FR 12550, Mar. 8, 2011]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 746 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on the 

accessibility of websites of the Department of Veterans Affairs to individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2019 

Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. MORAN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct 

a study on the accessibility of websites of the Department of Veterans Affairs to individuals with disabilities, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Department of Vet5 erans Affairs Website Accessibility Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 746 IS

1 SEC. 2. STUDY ON THE ACCESSIBILITY OF WEBSITES OF 

2 THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

3 TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES. 

4 (a) STUDY.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 

6 Affairs shall conduct a study of all websites of the Depart7 ment of Veterans Affairs to determine whether such 

8 websites are accessible to individuals with disabilities in 

9 accordance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

10 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d). 

11 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after com12 pleting the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 

13 submit to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the Sen14 ate and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the House 

15 of Representatives a report on such study. 

16 (c) ELEMENTS.—The report required by subsection 

17 (b) shall include the following: 

18 (1) A list of each website described in sub19 section (a) that is not accessible to individuals with 

20 disabilities in accordance with section 508 of the Re21 habilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d). 

22 (2) For each website identified in the list under 

23 paragraph (1)— 

24 (A) the plan of the Secretary to bring the 

25 website into compliance with the requirements 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 746 IS

1 of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

2 (29 U.S.C. 794d); and 

3 (B) a description of the barriers to bring4 ing the website into compliance with the re5 quirements of such section, including any bar6 riers relating to staffing. 

7 (d) WEBSITE DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

8 ‘‘website’’ includes the following: 

9 (1) A file attached to a website. 

10 (2) A web-based application. 

11 (3) A kiosk at a medical facility of the Depart12 ment of Veterans Affairs, the use of which is re13 quired to check in for scheduled appointments. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2013114EN.01001602.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2013 — Seven for all mankind LLC v Seven SpA — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-655/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier word mark - Element ‘SEVEN’ - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Relative ground for refusal)

2013/C 114/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Seven for all mankind LLC (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac and B. Guimberteau, avocats)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Seven SpA (represented by: L. Trevisan, avvocato), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 in Case T-176/10 SEVEN v OHIM — SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND, by which that Court annulled Decision R 1514/2008-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 January 2010 rejecting the action against the decision annulling the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected in part the opposition filed by the owner of the Community and international figurative marks containing the word element ‘Seven’ in respect of goods within Classes 3, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 25 and 28, against the registration of the word mark ‘SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND’ in respect of goods within Classes 14 and 18 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Factors to be taken into account when assessing the similarity of the signs

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Seven for all mankind LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Seven SpA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Seven for all mankind LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Seven SpA;

| 3. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1

---
10/3/12

1/1

You are here: EPA Home Air & Radiation Clean Air Markets Doing Business With Us CAIR

Allowance Status

Trading of CAIR Allowances

EPA has received questions about the status of CAIR allowances allocated for 2009 and

subsequent years.

Summary of Court actions

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled on petitions for review of the Clean Air

Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs), including their provisions

establishing the CAIR NOX annual and ozone season and SO2 trading programs. On July 11, 2008,

the Court issued an opinion vacating and remanding these rules; however, parties to the litigation

requested rehearing of aspects of the Court's decision, including the vacatur of the rules. On

December 23, 2008, the Court granted rehearing only to the extent that it remanded the rules to

EPA without vacating them.

Current status of CAIR programs

The December 23, 2008 ruling leaves CAIR and the CAIR FIPs -- including the CAIR trading

programs -- in place until EPA issues a new rule to replace CAIR in accordance with the July 11,

2008 decision. EPA informed the Court that development and finalization of a replacement rule

could take about two years.

Future year allowances

EPA is continuing to record allowance allocations under the CAIR NOX trading programs, in some

cases for years beyond the estimated two-year period for promulgation of a replacement rule.

EPA is taking these actions consistent with the State or federal rule that applies. When making

any decisions on, and arrangements for, purchasing or selling CAIR NOX allowances, prospective

buyers and sellers should keep in mind the potential impact that the status of CAIR and any

replacement rule may have on the value of the allowances, particularly those allocated for years

after the expected finalization of a replacement rule. EPA's continued recording of CAIR NOX

allowances does not guarantee or imply that any allowances will continue to be usable for

compliance after a replacement rule is finalized or that they will continue to have value in the

future.

Clean Air Markets

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/cairallowancestatus.html

Last updated on Tuesday, April 14, 2009
#### § 706.301 Use of Government employment.

A special Government employee shall not use his Government employment for a purpose that is, or gives the appearance of being, motivated by the desire for private gain for himself or another person, particularly one with whom he has family, business, or financial ties.
# C_2012295EN.01000901.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — ebookers.com Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

(Case C-112/11) (1)

1

(Transport - Air transport - Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Obligation on the person selling air travel to ensure that the customer’s acceptance of optional price supplements is on an opt-in basis - Concept of ‘optional price supplements’ - Price of flight cancellation insurance provided by an independent insurance company and forming part of the overall price)

2012/C 295/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ebookers.com Deutschland GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3) — Obligation on the seller of the air travel to ensure that the customer’s acceptance of the optional price supplements is on an opt-in basis — Concept of ‘optional price supplements’ — Price of cancellation insurance provided by an independent insurance company, forming part of the overall price and charged to the passenger at the same time as the price of the flight

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘optional price supplements’, referred to in the last sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers costs, connected with the air travel, arising from services, such as the flight cancellation insurance at issue in the main proceedings, supplied by a party other than the air carrier and charged to the customer by the person selling that travel, together with the air fare, as part of a total price.

---

(1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.

1

---
Granite

Mountain

Bear

Basin

Hells Canyon

Squaw

Meadows

Patrick

Butte

Bear

Pete

Marshall

Meadow

Jughandle

Crestline

South

Lick Creek/

Twentymile

Hazard

Creek

Slab

Butte

Hells Canyon

South Fork

Salmon River

Big Creek

Rapid River

Hornet Creek

Stibnite

Little Weiser River

Brundage

Little Ski Hill

P a y e t t e N a t i o n a l F o r e s t

T r a v e l M a n a g e m e n t P l a n n i n g

W i n t e r M o t o r i z e d C l o s u r e s - A l t e r n a t i v e E

P a y e t t e N a t i o n a l F o r e s t

T r a v e l M a n a g e m e n t P l a n n i n g

W i n t e r M o t o r i z e d C l o s u r e s - A l t e r n a t i v e E

Ë

0 2 4 8 12 16

Miles

Legend

Forest Boundary

Winter Motorized Closure

Wilderness
#### Pablo Rivas et al., Appellants, v AmeriMed USA, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 41]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered August 20, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to file an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs; and order, same court and Justice, entered March 2, 2006, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ fraud claims against the corporate defendant as duplicative of their breach of contract claims *(see Non-Linear Trading Co. v Braddis Assoc.,*243 AD2d 107, 118 [1998]). The fraud claims against the individual defendants Posner and Waksal, were also properly dismissed inasmuch as plaintiffs fail to allege that the individual defendants, who were members of the corporate defendant’s board of directors, breached any duty owed to them separate and apart from the alleged contractual obligations. Nor do they claim any special damages proximately caused by the false representations not recoverable under the contract measure of damages *(see Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v Holborn Oil Co.,*108 AD2d 607 [1985], *appeal dismissed*65 NY2d 637 [1985]).

The sixth cause of action, purportedly for negligent misrepresentation, was properly dismissed on the ground that the employer-employee relationship alleged was not one of special confidence and trust *(see Glanzer v Keilin & Bloom,*281 AD2d 371, 372 [2001]). The claim against defendant Engelman for tortious interference with contractual relations was subject to dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, since this Arizona resident’s alleged extrajurisdictional conduct was not adequately linked to injury in New York *(see*CPLR 302 [a] [3]). In any *251event, the allegations in the original complaint, as well as in the proposed amended complaint, were insufficient to support inferences that the complained-of acts by Engelman had been performed with malice and were calculated to impair plaintiffs’ business for Engelman’s personal profit *(see Joan Hansen & Co. v Everlast World’s Boxing Headquarters Corp.,*296 AD2d 103, 109-110 [2002]).

Dismissal of the claim for punitive damages was also proper, since plaintiffs failed to demonstrate “egregious tortious conduct by which [they were] aggrieved, [and] also that such conduct was part of a pattern of similar conduct directed at the public generally” *(Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S.,*83 NY2d 603, 613 [1994]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Sullivan, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.

Motion for reargument deemed one for clarification and, as such, the decision and order of this Court entered on June 27, 2006 (30 AD3d 330 [2006]) recalled and vacated and a new decision and order substituted therefor; leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.