alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014421EN.01006101.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/61

---

Action brought on 7 July 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-61/14)

2014/C 421/88

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise;

| — | Order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

---
§ 524.814 Eprinomectin. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter (mL) contains 5 milligrams (mg) of eprinomectin.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 000010, 051072, and 055529 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.227 of this chapter.
( d ) *Special considerations.* See § 500.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Conditions of use in cattle* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Apply 5 mg (1 mL) per 10 kilograms (kg) of body weight (500 micrograms/kg) topically along backbone from withers to tailhead.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For treatment and control of gastrointestinal roundworms (*Haemonchus placei* (adult and L4), *Ostertagia ostertagi* (adult and L4, including inhibited L4), *Trichostrongylus axei* (adult and L4), *T. colubriformis* (adult and L4), *T. longispicularis* (adult), *Cooperia oncophora* (adult and L4), *C. punctata* (adult and L4), *C. surnabada* (adult and L4), *Nematodirus helvetianus* (adult and L4), *Bunostomum phlebotomum* (adult and L4), *Oesophagostomum radiatum* (adult and L4), *Strongyloides papillosus* (adults), *Trichuris* spp. (adults)); lungworms (*Dictyocaulus viviparus,* adult and L4); cattle grubs (all parasitic stages *Hypoderma lineatum, H. bovis*); lice (*Damalinia bovis, Linognathus vituli, Haematopinus eurysternus, Solenopotes capillatus*); mange mites (*Chorioptes bovis, Sarcoptes scabiei*); and horn flies (*Haematobia irritans*). Controls and protects from reinfection of *D. viviparus* for 21 days after treatment and *H. irritans* for 7 days after treatment.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* A withdrawal period has not been established for preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.
[76 FR 72619, Nov. 25, 2011, as amended at 83 FR 48946, Sept. 28, 2018; 84 FR 39184, Aug. 9, 2019; 88 FR 27700, May 3, 2023]
1Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.

47.5.4.

-1-

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 03-31026

SUMMARY CALENDAR

_________________________

WILFRED T. LABORDE; PAUL TIMOTHY LABORDE; PATRICK J. LABORDE;

DAVE T. LABORDE,

Plaintiffs - Appellants

 v.

BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION; PHILIP MORRIS

INCORPORATED, doing business as Phillip Morris USA INC.; R.J. REYNOLDS

TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., 

Defendants - Appellees.

______________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana

(00-CV-388-D)

______________________________________________________________________________

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:1

In this appeal, we review the district court's decision granting Defendants - Appellees’,

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Philip Morris Incorporated, and R.J. Reynolds

Tobacco Company, application for taxation of costs.
-2-

Appellants argue that the application for taxation of costs should have been denied

because Uniform Local Civil Rule 54.3 requires that the application be filed within 30 days of

entry of a final judgment, and Appellees’ application was filed 31 days after the entry of judgment. 

However, we agree with the district court and find that the application was timely filed. 

Uniform Local Civil Rule 54.3 actually requires that an application for taxation of costs be

filed 30 days after receiving notice of entry of judgment. The district court entered judgment on

May 20, 2003. As required by FED. R. CIV. P 77(d), the district clerk served the notice of entry

of judgment by mail and facsimile the same day in the manner provided for in Rules 5(b)(2)(B)

and (D). Because the notice of entry of judgment was served by mail and facsimile, FED. R. CIV.

P. 6(e) granted Appellees three additional days in which to file their application for taxation of

costs. The application was filed on June 20, 2003, 31 days after judgment was entered. Thus, it

was timely.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
§ 524.1376 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole solution. ( a ) *Specifications.* The drug contains 1.3 percent 2-mercaptobenzothiazole in a suitable solvent.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See 017135 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Apply twice daily to affected area.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For dogs as an aid in the treatment of hot spots (moist dermatitis) and as first aid for scrapes and abrasions.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Clip hair from affected area before applying. If no improvement is seen within 1 week, consult a veterinarian.
[48 FR 15618, Apr. 12, 1983, as amended at 65 FR 50913, Aug. 22, 2000; 68 FR 33381, June 4, 2003]
Order entered March 1 6 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 15
- 00017
- CV
JAMES DAVID HORTON A ND ROBBIE LESA HORTO N, Appellant s V.
BROOKE DAVES , Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 14
- 11551


### O RDER
W e GRANT appellants’ March 2, 2015 motion to extend time to file brief and ORDER the brief tendered to the Court on March 2, 2015 filed as of the date of this order. Appellants’ February 1 8 , 2015 extension motion is DENIED as moot

. Appellee s hall file her brief no later than April 15 , 2015.
/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7656 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to require the President to submit 

a balanced budget to Congress, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2024 

Mr. FEENSTRA (for himself, Mr. BERGMAN, Mrs. SPARTZ, Mr. MANN, Mrs. 

BICE, and Mr. NUNN of Iowa) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress, 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 ‘‘Balanced Budget and 

5 Accounting Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIRING PRESIDENTS ANNUAL BUDGET TO BE 

7 BALANCED BUDGET. 

8 Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 

9 amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by insertVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:50 Mar 20, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7656.IH H7656

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7656 IH

1 ing after the first sentence the following: ‘‘Each budget 

2 shall be a balanced budget, and under each budget total 

3 outlays may not exceed total receipts during the applicable 

4 fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2017070EN.01001502.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-768/14) (1)

1

((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Pocemon project - Eligible costs - Counterclaim - Repayment of amounts paid - Default interest))

(2017/C 070/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application based on Article 272 TFUE and seeking a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of an amount paid to the applicant under agreement No 216088 to fund the project entitled ‘Point Of CarE MONitoring and Diagnostics for Autoimmune Diseases’, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) is unfounded, and, secondly, a counterclaim seeking an order against the applicant for repayment of an amount wrongfully paid under that agreement.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is dismissed;

| 2. | ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 377 733,93, plus default interest from 3 May 2014 and until full payment of that amount, at the rate of 3,75 %; |
| --- | --- |

2.

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 377 733,93, plus default interest from 3 May 2014 and until full payment of that amount, at the rate of 3,75 %;

| 3. | ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

1

---
# C_2015127EN.01000701.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/7

---

Appeal brought on 30 July 2014 by Argo Group International Holdings Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 May 2014 in Case T-247/12: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-370/14 P)

(2015/C 127/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd (represented by: F. Petillion, avocat, J. Janssen, Barrister)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Arisa Assurances SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 12 February 2015 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Argo Group International Holdings Ltd to bear its own costs.

---
# C_2014448EN.01001101.xml

| 15.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 3 October 2014 — Promoimpresa srl v Consorzio dei Comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia

(Case C-458/14)

(2014/C 448/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Promoimpresa srl

Applicant:

Defendants: Consorzio dei Comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and safeguarding competition, respectively laid down in Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, and the precept of reasonableness implicit therein, preclude national legislation under which the validity of concessions of economically significant publicly-owned maritime, lakeside and waterway assets is to be repeatedly extended through a succession of legislative acts, the duration of that validity being statutorily increased for at least 11 years, with the effect that the same concessionaire retains the exclusive right to exploit the asset economically, even though the period of validity under the concession awarded to that concessionaire has meanwhile expired, whereby interested economic operators are deprived of any opportunity of obtaining a concession for the asset on the basis of a public tendering procedure?

---
§ 582.5315 Ferrous sulfate. ( a ) *Product.* Ferrous sulfate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
# C_2015398EN.01005101.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2015 — Promarc Technics v OHIM — PIS (Part of door)

(Case T-251/14) (1)

1

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing part of a door - Earlier international design consisting of an American patent - Ground of invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Evidence that the earlier design was made available to the public - Circles specialised in the sector concerned - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Article 6, Article 7(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2015/C 398/64)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski (Zabierzów, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Petrycki i Sorys sp.j. (PIS) (Jasło, Poland) (represented by: D. Kulig, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 1464/2012-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Petrycki i Sorys sp.j. (PIS) and Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1997
<CASH>                                           2,434
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                       400
<INVENTORY>                                     73,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,784
<PP&E>                                         848,735
<DEPRECIATION>                                 499,586
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 568,435
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          576,091
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       139,012
<OTHER-SE>                                   (252,180)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   568,435
<SALES>                                        738,762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               738,762
<CGS>                                          709,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  709,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (84,473)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,676
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (88,149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (88,149)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
: ., 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Art1010 684sI, 900. 

Oitll Statatw, 19S5, aa l end 

roil088 t 

00 •~ r0mnt . . . . 

8n or l ooh oh114 the l PP l r 

.OO) per month oat11 mob o&lld 

or l lgbteea (18) rear81 . . .* 

r lottar l kla( 98 to wnrtr# tbl8 l tattutory 

prorlrlon 1s a8 ronon: 
. 

immrablo Mama sattwrlel4 - pa&a t 

l ultb furlher rorennor to roar raoent 

oplnloa In 8bloh you rtato that 

slnora wba are ratltlcrd to r 

ywn88 te 

boner ta wdor 

Artlole It48-• aboold be ~4e to tbo guer61aa 

or the wtate, If oao, mid Ii aat than ~to t&e 

ooaaty olart.. 

WI* quaatlon now arirra a1 to wbetbor or 

not asob payment l bs~ld ba roaaldrred l eprratoly 

or oollootlval~. Tvr lnstraoe mob oblld la 

mtltlad to @3.00 par month rhioh would amount 

to ror a 4 par prriod l d tbIa mount 

wou P d rroood tbr. 3SSO MSIWB ubloh auy k pal6 

to the nglrtry of tbe aourt. 

your 

*In rlew of 8ha rbove w wnrla rppreolata 

ruling on tJn ~ol~oorI~ qu~atIoner 

‘1. Should rtoh mat4l~ paymat Do oonrieerd 

aeprretoly? 

l t. If aeoh mcatbly prrwnt MT b oonaidord 

aeparatolt, mnd lt la obWm8, from the sue vi 

the ohlld, that pa~ntm to It aelleetIre4 

will mount to mm tbon $250, box l bould the 

poywnta be wdo and te ubom, sbero so ~uardlan 

Or tba estate he8 been rppolntOd?” 

Then la no prorl 

sum rettlrwnt 0r thaae hen 

la la rue a wpmete pafw 

rlair. Eorawr, we sea no 

kn0rit8 to tb8 0000tr imr 

for the us0 and knerit or 

borna !B MiB& the t Wdet’ th 

l utborltti to bold wro tba 

am$bl~ prpwata in th fun 

tlon IO the stat&o for a leap 

at8 an4 l aoh wnth ly pqmat 

It l rlainc. from a llqoldrted 

tbJeotlon to the pa nt 0r aurh 

: wider utlole U1 r 4, V.A.C.8.. 

ibe nlnerl but, It should be 

,a l tlole, the Ol*rk la not 

L $250.00 of the rooumulated 

la or the rimor ot my we tlu. 
. 

As 8 prrotloml nabtor, due to tb* o-11 lnrtmllmenta Intoltd hen, the l r p a o eor a wk lng l epar~ta 

rltbdr~ralr wulJ ba prohlbltlro on& while both foma 

of rlt&drawala - I.e., by re&or (Irrrrdlauhip or ander tbo grootiun 0r brtlole Ulba, V.r.0.s. -- me 

pomlaslb1r, w thlsk l (uardlmahlp rd+la~ble ln this 

OaU. 

3lnoo w kato held that then lpoathly paJmnt8 

are to be aonrldorad reporate paymnt8, it 18 not moeIl arr for us to 8n8wer your moon4 q\ii8tlOn. 

Your8 tory truly 

Dar14 ?iuntoh 

Aaalctmt
# C_2015381EN.01003402.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/34

---

Order of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (GREEN BEANS)

(Case T-666/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Period for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Notification of the Board of Appeal’s decision by fax machine - Receipt of the fax - Lateness - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2015/C 381/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2013 (Case R 1530/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign GREEN BEANS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Monster Energy Company shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Monster Energy Company shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 60
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 60 appear at 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003, and at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 60.24 Revision of regulatory review period determinations. ( a ) Any person may request a revision of the regulatory review period determination within 60 days after its initial publication in the Federal Register. The request shall be sent to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. The request shall specify the following: ( 1 ) The type of action requested;
( 2 ) The identity of the product;
( 3 ) The identity of the applicant;
( 4 ) The FDA docket number; and
( 5 ) The basis for the request for revision, including any documentary evidence.
( b ) Unless the applicant is the person requesting the revision, the applicant shall respond to the request within 15 days. In responding to the request, the applicant may submit information which is relevant to the events during the regulatory review period but which was not included in the original patent term restoration application. A request for a revision is not equivalent to a due diligence petition under § 60.30 or a request for a hearing under § 60.40. If no response is submitted, FDA will decide the matter on the basis of the information in the patent term restoration application, request for revision, and FDA records.
( c ) FDA shall apply the provisions of § 60.22 in considering the request for a revision of the regulatory review period determination. lf FDA revises its prior determination, FDA will notify PTO of the revision, send a copy of this notification to the applicant, and publish the revision in the Federal Register, including a statement giving the reasons for the revision.
[53 FR 7305, Mar. 7, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 14364, Mar. 28, 1994; 67 FR 9585, Mar. 4, 2002]
EXHIBIT 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Donald W. Reilly, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-K/A of Evergreen Solar, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Donald W. Reilly   
|Donald W. Reilly       
|Chief Financial Officer
|April 29, 2011