alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015213EN.01004301.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Bischoff v Commission

(Case F-36/14) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Compulsory retirement - Article 23(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Retirement age - Refusal to extend the period of activity - Second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations - Interest of the service))

(2015/C 213/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hartwig Bischoff (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the Commission’s decisions rejecting, first, the application to extend the applicant’s service and, second, confirming the applicant’s compulsory retirement on 1 June 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Declares that Mr Bischoff is to bear all of his own costs and all of the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Declares that Mr Bischoff is to bear all of his own costs and all of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 292, 1/9/2014, p. 60.

1

---
EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the inclusion in this Amendment No. 8 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-1 of our report dated April 13, 2000 (with respect to the
second paragraph, Note (H) April 19, 2000; with respect to Note D(1) June 21,
2000), on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Urban Cool
Network, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, for year ended
December 31, 1999, for the period from January 23, 1998 (inception) through
December 31, 1998 and for the period from January 23, 1998 (inception) through
December 31, 1999 and to the reference of our firm under the caption "Experts."

Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

New York, New York
September 6, 2000
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D22-754 

LT Case No. 2019-102037-CFDL 

_____________________________ 

JEFFREY VAN PATTEN, 

Appellant,

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. 

James R. Clayton, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Steven N. Gosney, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard 

Pallas, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney 

General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 

December 5, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., WALLIS, and PRATT, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
§ 573.980 Taurine. The food additive taurine (2-amino-ethanesulfonic acid) may be safely used in feed in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) It is used as a nutritional supplement in the feed of growing chickens.
( b ) It is added to complete feeds so that the total taurine content does not exceed 0.054 percent of the feed.
( c ) To assure safe use of the additive, the label and labeling shall bear in addition to the other information required by the Act: ( 1 ) The name of the additive.
( 2 ) The quantity of the additive contained therein.
( 3 ) Adequate directions for use.
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.

§ 60.32 Applicant response to petition. ( a ) The applicant shall file with FDA a written response to the petition no later than 30 days after the applicant's receipt of a copy of the petition.
( b ) The applicant's response may present additional facts and circumstances to address the assertions in the petition, but shall be limited to the issue of whether the applicant acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. The applicant's response may include documents that were not in the original patent extension application.
( c ) If the applicant does not respond to the petition, FDA will decide the matter on the basis of the information submitted in the patent term restoration application, due diligence petition, and FDA records.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                              TO:   Mr. Jim O'Halloran
                         COMPANY:   N2H2, Inc.
                           PHONE:
                             FAX:   206-336-2971


                            FROM:   Jeanne Hayes
                         COMPANY:   Quality Education Data, Inc.
                           PHONE:   1-800/525-5811 ext. 255
                             FAX:   303/839-0444

                            DATE:   7/6/99
           PAGES INCLUDING COVER:   1

COMMENTS:


This will authorize N2H2, Inc. to include the recent Internet Filtering
Research Study, conducted by QED for N2H2, and the QED 1998-1999 Mailing List
and Education in its S-1 filing with the SEC.



Sincerely,

/s/ JEANNE HAYES

Jeanne Hayes
President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         411,295
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  448,645
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      33,341,192
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,722,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,602,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,959,265
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,694,069)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,702,279
<SALES>                                      4,471,434
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,471,434
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,801,583
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             838,319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (197,589)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (197,589)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 809.30 Restrictions on the sale, distribution and use of analyte specific reagents. ( a ) Analyte specific reagents (ASR's) (§ 864.4020 of this chapter) are restricted devices under section 520(e) of the Federal Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act (the act) subject to the restrictions set forth in this section.
( b ) ASR's may only be sold to: ( 1 ) In vitro diagnostic manufacturers;
( 2 ) Clinical laboratories regulated under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), as qualified to perform high complexity testing under 42 CFR part 493 or clinical laboratories regulated under VHA Directive 1106 (available from Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC 20420); and
( 3 ) Organizations that use the reagents to make tests for purposes other than providing diagnostic information to patients and practitioners, e.g., forensic, academic, research, and other nonclinical laboratories.
( c ) ASR's must be labeled in accordance with § 809.10(e).
( d ) Advertising and promotional materials for ASR's: ( 1 ) Shall include the identity and purity (including source and method of acquisition) of the analyte specific reagent and the identity of the analyte;
( 2 ) Shall include the statement for class I exempt ASR's: “Analyte Specific Reagent. Analytical and performance characteristics are not established”;
( 3 ) Shall include the statement for class II or III ASR's: “Analyte Specific Reagent. Except as a component of the approved/cleared test (name of approved/cleared test), analytical and performance characteristics are not established”; and
( 4 ) Shall not make any statement regarding analytical or clinical performance.
( e ) The laboratory that develops an in-house test using the ASR shall inform the ordering person of the test result by appending to the test report the statement: “This test was developed and its performance characteristics determined by (Laboratory Name). It has not been cleared or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.” This statement would not be applicable or required when test results are generated using the test that was cleared or approved in conjunction with review of the class II or III ASR.
( f ) Ordering in-house tests that are developed using analyte specific reagents is limited under section 520(e) of the act to physicians and other persons authorized by applicable State law to order such tests.
( g ) The restrictions in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section do not apply when reagents that otherwise meet the analyte specific reagent definition are sold to: ( 1 ) In vitro diagnostic manufacturers; or
( 2 ) Organizations that use the reagents to make tests for purposes other than providing diagnostic information to patients and practitioners, e.g., forensic, academic, research, and other nonclinical laboratories.
[62 FR 62259, Nov. 21, 1997]
# C_2015398EN.01005201.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/52

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Cyprus v OHIM (XAΛΛOYMI and HALLOUMI)

(Joined Cases T-292/14 and T-293/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Applications for Community word marks XAΛΛOYMI and HALLOUMI - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 398/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Two actions brought against two decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2014 (Case R 1849/2013-4 and Case R 1503/2013-4), concerning applications for registration of the word sign XAΛΛOYMI and the word sign HALLOUMI, respectively, as Community trade marks.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Cyprus to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Cyprus to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

1

---
§ 58.1 Scope. ( a ) This part prescribes good laboratory practices for conducting nonclinical laboratory studies that support or are intended to support applications for research or marketing permits for products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, including food and color additives, animal food additives, human and animal drugs, medical devices for human use, biological products, and electronic products. Compliance with this part is intended to assure the quality and integrity of the safety data filed pursuant to sections 406, 408, 409, 502, 503, 505, 506, 510, 512-516, 518-520, 721, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and sections 351 and 354-360F of the Public Health Service Act.
( b ) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21, unless otherwise noted.
[43 FR 60013, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 52 FR 33779, Sept. 4, 1987; 64 FR 399, Jan. 5, 1999]
Exhibit
14.3

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements Forms F-3 No. 333-12096, No.
333-13550 and No. 333-84510 and Form S-8 No. 333-106591 of Deutsche
Telekom AG of our report dated March 26, 2004, except for Note 24, as
to which the date is June 15, 2004, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of OJSC Mobile TeleSystems and subsidiaries,
appearing in this amendment to the Annual Report on Form 20-F of
Deutsche Telekom AG for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ ZAO Deloitte & Touche CIS

June 25, 2004 Moscow,
Russia

---
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2019259DE.01008601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.10.2019 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 259/86 |

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie (EU) 2019/790 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 17. April 2019 über das Urheberrecht und die verwandten Schutzrechte im digitalen Binnenmarkt und zur Änderung der Richtlinien 96/9/EG und 2001/29/EG

(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 130 vom 17. Mai 2019)

Seite 113 Artikel 3 Absatz 1

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(1) | Die Mitgliedstaaten sehen eine Ausnahme von den in Artikel 5 Buchstabe a und Artikel 7 Absatz 1 der Richtlinie 96/9/EG, Artikel 2 der Richtlinie 2001/29/EG, und Artikel 15 Absatz 1 der vorliegenden Richtlinie festgelegten Rechten für Vervielfältigungen und Entnahmen vor, die durch Forschungsorganisationen und Einrichtungen des Kulturerbes von Werken oder sonstigen Schutzgegenständen, zu denen sie rechtmäßig Zugang haben, zum Zwecke der wissenschaftlichen Forschung für die Text und Data Mining vorgenommen werden.“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(1) | Die Mitgliedstaaten sehen eine Ausnahme von den in Artikel 5 Buchstabe a und Artikel 7 Absatz 1 der Richtlinie 96/9/EG, Artikel 2 der Richtlinie 2001/29/EG, und Artikel 15 Absatz 1 der vorliegenden Richtlinie festgelegten Rechten für Vervielfältigungen und Entnahmen vor, die durch Forschungsorganisationen und Einrichtungen des Kulturerbes vorgenommen werden, um für Zwecke der wissenschaftlichen Forschung Text und Data Mining von Werken oder sonstigen Schutzgegenständen, zu denen sie rechtmäßig Zugang haben, durchzuführen.“ |

---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

### i:=i5 i-:.'J 

### -3 CJ :::: 

### 3q DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIRTRAVEL AND SCOT SPENCER AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. AND RICHARD BERNARD 

### UnauthorizedAir Transportation, Unfair andDeceptivePractices and UnfairMethods of Competition, and Violations of Public CharterRules EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

### Unfair andDeceptivePractices and UnfairMethods of Competition, and Violations of Public CharterRules Enforcement Proceeding

STATUS REPORT DOT-OST-1995-272 formerly Docket 49233

The Office ofthe Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and · Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of**thi~** proceeding and settlement negotiations. The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004- "17486.**------~---------------------------------------------------------------------~** 2 There have been no further settlement discussions. Date: March 3, 2015
Respectfully submitted,

Blane Workie Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
Vinh Q. Nguyen Senior Trial Attorney United States Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Room 96-429 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: 202-366-9342 FPC(: 202-366-71523 Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 I hereby certify that on this 3rd day ofMarch, 2015, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Status Report was served in the following mannerto the following: Original U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room Wl2-140 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 By First Class Mail The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law Judge Office ofHearings; M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2142 FAX: (202) 366-7536 By First Class Mail Scot Spencer SBD Aircraft Services 255 S**~eland** Norton Way Sam Bernardino, CA 92408 Scot Spencer 22604 Esplanada Circle Boca Raton, Florida 33433
# C_2014372EN.01000401.xml

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Rosaria Laezza

(Case C-375/14)

2014/C 372/06

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Frosinone

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Rosaria Laezza

Question referred

Question referred

Are Article 49 and follows. and Article 56 and follows. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as also expanded upon by the principles laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 February 2012 in Case C-72/10, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which imposes an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the right to use the tangible and intangible assets constituting the network for managing and collecting bets upon cessation of that activity due to the expiry of the relevant licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1996
<CASH>                                           3,798
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                        30
<INVENTORY>                                      3,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,420
<PP&E>                                         262,476
<DEPRECIATION>                                 104,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,544
<BONDS>                                         31,735
<COMMON>                                         2,147
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,082
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     136,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,341
<SALES>                                        219,142 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               223,077
<CGS>                                          108,290
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  204,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,635  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,627
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,977
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,977
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>
39106.

#### WILDWOOD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. CADRANEL.

*698Decided October 6, 1961

Rehearing denied October 25, 1961.

*Parks & Eisenberg, David S. Eisenberg,*for plaintiff in error. *Liyshutz, Macey, Zusmann & Sikes,*contra.

Nichols, Judge.

On the first appearance of this case before this court it was held that the plaintiff introduced evidence in support of each of the allegations of his petition and that a nonsuit should not have been entered. Such decision established as the law of the case, that such evidence would authorize a finding that the plaintiff proved his case as laid. On the second trial the plaintiff’s evidence was substantially the same as that adduced on the first trial, and while the defendant’s evidence tended to contradict such evidence, still a question was presented for the trior of facts as to whether the evidence of the plaintiff or that of the defendant was to be believed.

Prior to the second trial the defendant’s general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition as amended was overruled and no exception has been taken to such judgment, and as long as such judgment stands unreversed the law of the case is that the petition set forth a cause of action. See *Cloud v. Stewart,*92 Ga. App. 247, 249 (88 SE2d 323), and citations.

Where a petition sets forth a cause of action and the plaintiff proves his case as laid by a preponderance of' the evidence his is entitled to a recovery. See *McKool v. Naddra,*100 Ga. App. 171 (1) (110 SE2d 409), and citations.

*699While certain of the defendant’s evidence contradicted the plaintiff’s evidence and sought to impeach the plaintiff’s evidence yet the finding for the plaintiff was authorized. The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
# Attachment 1 :

Results of PubMed Search

Petition to E stablish a Tolerance Exemption Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R Dec.10, 2014

Page 12 of 55Petition to E stablish a Tolerance Exemption Trichoderma asperelloides strain JM41R Dec.10, 2014

Page 13 of 55