alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4.93 Action on exemption applications. ( a ) An application for exemption that does not meet the eligibility requirements of § 4.30(b)(30)(iv) may be accepted, provided the application has been accompanied by a request for waiver under § 4.92(a)(1) and the waiver request has not been denied. Acceptance of an application that has been accompanied by a request for waiver under § 4.92(a)(1) does not constitute a ruling on the waiver request, unless expressly stated in the acceptance.
( b ) The Commission will circulate a notice of application for exemption to interested agencies and Indian tribes at the time the applicant is notified that the application is accepted for filing.
( c ) In granting an exemption the Commission may prescribe terms or conditions in addition to those set forth in § 4.94, in order to: ( 1 ) Protect the quality or quantity of the related water supply for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption;
( 2 ) Otherwise protect life, health, or property;
( 3 ) Avoid or mitigate adverse environmental impact; or
( 4 ) Conserve, develop, or utilize in the public interest the water power resources of the region.
( d ) *Conversion to license application.* ( 1 ) If an application for exemption under this subpart is denied by the Commission, the applicant may convert the exemption application into an application for license for the hydroelectric project.
( 2 ) The applicant must provide the Commission with written notification, within 30 days after the date of issuance of the order denying exemption, that it intends to convert the exemption application into a license application. The applicant must submit to the Commission, no later than 90 days after the date of issuance of the order denying exemption, additional information that is necessary to conform the exemption application to the relevant regulations for a license application.
( 3 ) If all the information timely submitted is found sufficient, together with the application for exemption, to conform to the relevant regulations for a license application, the converted application will be considered *accepted for filing* as of the date that the exemption application was accepted for filing.
[Order 76, 45 FR 28090, Apr. 28, 1980, as amended by Order 413, 50 FR 11687, Mar. 25, 1985; Order 533, 56 FR 23153, May 20, 1991; Order 2002, 68 FR 51121, Aug. 25, 2003; Order 800, 79 FR 59110, Oct. 1, 2014]
# C_2012118EN.01000702.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Spain) — Ángel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE

(Case C-166/11) (1)

1

(Consumer protection - Contracts negotiated away from business premises - Directive 85/577/EEC - Scope - Not included - Unit-linked insurance contracts)

2012/C 118/11

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ángel Lorenzo González Alonso

Applicant:

Defendant: Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(d) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — Contract, concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium invested in various products of the company itself

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

A contract concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium to be invested, in varying proportions, in fixed-rate investments, variable-rate investments and financial investment products of the company offering the contract falls outside the scope of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises, in accordance with Article 3(2)(d) thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.

1

---
Exhibit 12

                              The Gillette Company

                       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Dollars in millions
                                                                     2002           2001        2000          1999        1998
                                                                   -------        -------     --------      --------    --------
<S>                                                                <C>              <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>
Earnings:
       Income from continuing operations before income taxes       $ 1,752          1,342        1,288        1,912        1,656
       Interest expense                                                 84            145          223          136           94
       Interest portion of rental expense                               43             31           25           20           17
       Amortization of capitalized interest                             10              9            6            5            4
                                                                   --------      ---------    --------     --------     --------
       Earnings available for fixed charges                        $ 1,889          1,527        1,542        2,073        1,771
                                                                   ========      =========    ========     ========     ========

Fixed Charges:
       Interest expense                                            $    84            145          223          136           94
       Interest capitalized                                              4             11           23           13           18
       Interest portion of rental expense                               43             31           25           20           17
                                                                   --------      ---------    --------     --------     --------
       Total fixed charges                                         $   131            187          271          169          129
                                                                   ========      =========    ========     ========     ========


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                    14.5            8.2          5.7         12.3         13.7
                                                                   ========      =========    ========     ========     ========
</TABLE>
§ 2.53 Mandatory parole. ( a ) A prisoner (including a prisoner sentenced under the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act, Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, or the provisions of 5010(c) of the Youth Corrections Act) serving a term or terms of 5 years or longer shall be released on parole after completion of two-thirds of each consecutive term or terms or after completion of 30 years of each term or terms of more than 45 years (including life terms), whichever comes earlier, unless pursuant to a hearing under this section, the Commission determines that there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner will commit any Federal, State, or local crime or that the prisoner has frequently or seriously violated the rules of the institution in which he is confined. If parole is denied pursuant to this section, such prisoner shall serve until the expiration of his sentence less good time.
( b ) When feasible, at least 60 days prior to the scheduled two-thirds date, a review of the record shall be conducted by an examiner panel. If a mandatory parole is ordered following this review, no hearing shall be conducted.
( c ) A prisoner released on mandatory parole pursuant to this section shall remain under supervision until the expiration of the full term of his sentence unless the Commission terminates parole supervision pursuant to § 2.43 prior to the full term date of the sentence.
( d ) A prisoner whose parole has been revoked and whose parole violator term is 5 years or more shall be eligible for mandatory parole under the provisions of this section upon completion of two-thirds of the violator term and shall be considered for mandatory parole under the same terms as any other eligible prisoner.
[43 FR 38822, Aug. 31, 1978]
### SUBCHAPTER IV—PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS THE ESCALATING WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING CRISIS
### Part C—Water Resources Projects
#### § 401.78 Consolidation of hearings.

Following such informal conferences as may be held, to the extent that the same or similar grounds for objections are raised by one or more objectors, the Executive Director may in his discretion and with the consent of the objectors, cause a consolidated hearing to be scheduled at which two or more objectors asserting that ground may be heard.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 14970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6314]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-
Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-181, 
November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and 
to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States to Congress.
    Time and Place: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 
Security processing will be necessary for entry into the building. The 
meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 1143, 
811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda: Agenda items include a briefing of the Advisory Committee 
members on the status of the Bank's reauthorization, the 
competitiveness report and progress reports from the various 
subcommittees.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a 
photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance 
process into the building, and you may contact Susan Houser to be 
placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such 
as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please 
contact, prior to March 23, 2011, Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571. Voice: (202) 565-3232.
    Further Information: For further information, contact Susan Houser. 
Room 1273, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3232.

Jonathan Cardone,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-6314 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
[PEOPLESWAY LETTERHEAD]

July 1, 2002


Thomas Radzavich
2908 Lakemont Drive
Flower Mound, TX 75022


Dear Thomas Radzavich:

This letter is to confirm our discussion regarding your efforts to assist
Peoplesway in developing new markets.

As compensation for your efforts, you will receive the equivalent of $5,833.33
per month for the first six (6) months, in free trading shares, to be delivered
at the end of each month.  This will begin July 2002 and automatically renew for
an additional six (6) months unless cancelled by either party.  Additionally,
you will receive a one-time bonus of 100,000 Rule 144 shares, upon the execution
of this agreement, based on a one year minimum commitment.  Should either party
cancel this agreement, prior to June 30, 2003, a pro-rated portion of the
100,000 Rule 144 shares from the bonus will be returned to Peoplesway.  During
the term of this contract, expenses will be your responsibility, unless prior
written approval has been given for specific expenses to be reimbursed.

Should you be hired as an employee, any free trading shares still in your
possession would be converted to Rule 144 shares.  You would receive a salary
annualized at $70,000, expense reimbursement and participation in any corporate
benefits programs being offered.

We look forward to working with you.


Regards,

                                               ________________________
E. M. "Gene" Johnston                         Agreed to By Thomas Radzavich
CEO

Cc:     Donald R. "Pete" Monroe
        Matthew M. Monroe

                   2969 Interstate Street, Charlotte, NC 28208
        Phone: 704-393-7591 - Toll Free: 866-762-7599 - Fax: 704-391-0993
# C_2012295EN.01001201.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku — Poland) — Fortuna sp. z o.o. (C-213/11), Grand sp. z o.o. (C-214/11), Forta sp. z o.o. (C-217/11) v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni

(Joined Cases C-213/11, C-214/11 and C-217/11) (1)

1

(Internal market - Directive 98/34/EC - Technical standards and regulations - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations - Low-prize gaming machines - Prohibition of the amendment, extension and issue of operating authorisations - Concept of ‘technical regulation’)

2012/C 295/19

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Fortuna sp. z o.o. (C-213/11), Grand sp. z o.o. (C-214/11), Forta sp. z o.o. (C-217/11)

Applicants:

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku — Interpretation of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006 (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37) — Concept of ‘technical regulation’ — National provision prohibiting the amendment of an operating authorisation for low-prize gaming machines in respect of a change of the place in which those machines are installed

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that national provisions, such as those of the Law on games of chance (ustawa o grach hazardowich) of 19 November 2009, which could have the effect of limiting, or even gradually rendering impossible, the running of gaming on low-prize machines anywhere other than in casinos and gaming arcades are capable of constituting ‘technical regulations’, within the meaning of that provision, the drafts of which must be the subject of communication as provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of the directive, in so far as it is established that those provisions constitute conditions which can significantly influence the nature or the marketing of the product concerned, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.

1

---
# C_2013260EN.01000602.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Mark Alemo-Herron and Others v Parkwood Leisure Ltd

(Case C-426/11) (1)

1

(Transfer of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Collective agreement applicable to the transferor and to the employee at the time of the transfer)

2013/C 260/10

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mark Alemo-Herron, Sandra Tipping, Christopher Anderson, Stacey Aris, Audrey Beckford, Lee Bennett, Delroy Carby, Vishnu Chetty, Deborah Cimitan, Victoria Clifton, Claudette Cummings, David Curtis, Stephen Flin, Patience Ijelekhai, Rosemarie Lee, Roxanne Lee, Vivian Ling, Michelle Nicholas, Lansdail Nugent, Anne O’Connor, Shirley Page, Alan Peel, Mathew Pennington, Laura Steward

Applicants:

Defendant: Parkwood Leisure Ltd

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Alemo-Herron and Others v Parkwood Leisure Ltd — Interpretation of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 March 2001 in Case C-499/04 Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems — Extent of the transferee's obligations to comply with conditions relating to salaries under a collective agreement applicable to the transferor and the employee at the time of the transfer

Alemo-Herron and Others

Parkwood Leisure Ltd

Werhof

Freeway Traffic Systems

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking, that dynamic clauses referring to collective agreements negotiated and adopted after the date of transfer are enforceable against the transferee, where that transferee does not have the possibility of participating in the negotiation process of such collective agreements concluded after the date of the transfer.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

1

---
### SUBCHAPTER LI—INDEPENDENCE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
# C_2011139EN.01001204.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — Vodafone España, S.A.

(Case C-55/11)

2011/C 139/22

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vodafone España, S.A.

Appellant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a fee may be required for the right to install facilities on municipal public land from operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of the network, use it to provide mobile telephony services? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a fee may be required for the right to install facilities on municipal public land from operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of the network, use it to provide mobile telephony services?

1

| 2. | In the event that the levy is found to be compatible with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC, do the conditions in accordance with which the fee is required under the contested local regulation satisfy the requirements of objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination laid down in that provision, together with the need to ensure the optimal use of the resources concerned? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the levy is found to be compatible with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC, do the conditions in accordance with which the fee is required under the contested local regulation satisfy the requirements of objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination laid down in that provision, together with the need to ensure the optimal use of the resources concerned?

| 3. | Is it appropriate to recognise Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC as having direct effect? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it appropriate to recognise Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC as having direct effect?

---

(1)  OJ L 108, p. 21

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7456

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL STEVEN BEEMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:14-cr-00051-MFU-1; 5:17-

cv-81244-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 26, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy Brian Gordon, JEREMY GORDON, PLLC, Mansfield, Texas, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Steven Beeman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Beeman has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### SUBCHAPTER VI—MISCELLANEOUS