alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016326EN.01002102.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Bredenkamp and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-66/14) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Zimbabwe - Freezing of funds - Non-contractual liability))

(2016/C 326/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: John Arnold Bredenkamp (Harare, Zimbabwe), Echo Delta (Holdings) PCC Ltd (Castletown, Isle of Man), Scottlee Holdings (Private) Ltd (Harare), Fodya (Private) Ltd (Harare) (represented by: P. Moser QC, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt, D. Gauci and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009 of 26 January 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2009 L 23, p. 5), Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2010 of 25 February 2010 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2010 L 51, p. 13) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011 of 23 February 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 49, p. 23).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders John Arnold Bredenkamp, Echo Delta (Holdings) PCC Ltd, Scottlee Holdings (Private) Ltd and Fodya (Private) Ltd to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders John Arnold Bredenkamp, Echo Delta (Holdings) PCC Ltd, Scottlee Holdings (Private) Ltd and Fodya (Private) Ltd to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7305

LUCIUS DRAFTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GARY D. MAYNARD; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney

General for the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-02-120-22BD)

Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: October 31, 2002

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lucius Drafts, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lucious Drafts, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court

from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state

court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a

district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural

grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the

petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the

denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.

2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We

have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the

district court that Drafts has not made the requisite showing. See

Drafts v. Maynard, No. CA-02-120-22BD (D.S.C. filed Aug. 6, 2002 &

entered Aug. 7, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2017104EN.01004401.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/44

---

Order of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Unilever v EUIPO — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)

(Case T-811/14) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Fair & Lovely - Earlier national and Benelux word marks FAIR & LOVELY - Decision on the appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Legitimate expectations - Misuse of powers - Manifest errors of assessment))

(2017/C 104/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unilever NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Fox, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Technopharma Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Scott, Barrister)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2014 (Case R 1004/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Technopharma and Unilever.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2014 (Case R 1004/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Technopharma Ltd et Unilever NV; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2014 (Case R 1004/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Technopharma Ltd et Unilever NV;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever;

| 3. | Orders Technopharma to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Technopharma to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Unilever.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

1

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7802 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

400 Whitehead Street in Key West, Florida, as the ‘‘Jimmy Buffett 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2024 

Mr. GIMENEZ (for himself, Mr. DUNN of Florida, Mrs. CAMMACK, Mr. POSEY, 

Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida, Mr. MAST, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, and Ms. SALAZAR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 400 Whitehead Street in Key West, Florida, 

as the ‘‘Jimmy Buffett Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JIMMY BUFFETT POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 400 Whitehead Street in Key 

6 West, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Jimmy Buffett Post Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7802 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jimmy Buffett Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 35.1



World Omni Financial Corp.

Servicer Compliance Statement

Pursuant to Item 1123

of Regulation AB



I, William J. Shope,
do hereby certify that I am the GroupVice President, Analytics and Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida
corporation, and further certify on behalf of World Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”)
under the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement 2015-A to Closed-End Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 29, 2015 (the “Exchange
Note Servicing Supplement”), among AL Holding Corp., as Closed-End Collateral Agent, World Omni LT, as Titling Trust, and
the Servicer, as follows:



(i)	A review of
the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on form 10-K and covered by
the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement)
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Exchange Note
Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement), has been made
under my supervision.



(ii)	To the best
of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Exchange Note
Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement) in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand as of March 10, 2017.



| | WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORP.
| | --------------------------
| |                           
| | By:                       
| |                           
| |
Exhibit 10.18

SUN CAPITAL PARTNERS III QP, LP

April 21,
2004

LOUD
Technologies Inc.
Attention: Mr. Tim O'Neil
16220 Wood-Red Road NE
Woodinville, WA 98072

Dear
Tim:

This
letter is to confirm our commitment from the date of this letter through December 31, 2004, to provide up to an aggregate of $2,000,000 in debt or equity financing to LOUD
Technologies Inc., ("Loud") if necessary to enable Loud to meet it's obligations as they come due. If the $2,000,000 financing is in the form of debt financing, it is expected that the terms
will be generally similar to the terms of the exiting subordinated or senior debt arrangements of Loud, adjusted as necessary to reflect changed market conditions. If equity is the form of financing,
it is expected the terms will be at fair value based on the then current market conditions. In order to avoid any doubt, uncertainty or ambiguity, all of our commitments under this letter shall
expire, without any further action required by us, as of the earlier of the date such debt or equity financing is provided by us or an affiliate, or 5:00 PM PST on December 31, 2004.

|By:                                                       | Sun Capital Advisors III, LP, its general partner   |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|By:                                                       | Sun Capital Partners, III, LLC, its general partner |  | 
|By:                                                       |                                                     |  | 
|                                                          | /s/R. LYNN SKILLENVice President                    |  | 
|Acknowledged, agreed, accepted this 21 day of April 2004.
|LOUD Technologies Inc.                                    |                                                     | 
|By:                                                       |                                                     |  | 
|                                                          | /s/TIM O'NEILChief Financial Officer                |  | 

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from unaudited
financial statements for the six month period ending June 30, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>          0000813812
<NAME>         RIVERSIDE PARK ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER>   1
<CURRENCY>     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                     2,414,149
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0
<PP&E>                                    72,824,161
<DEPRECIATION>                           (30,362,708)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            46,949,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              0
<BONDS>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (662,592)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              46,949,767
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           5,429,726
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           2,106,851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,951,231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (281,327)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (281,327)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                (281,327)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (482.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (482.13)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2018328EN.01003101.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — Stührk Delikatessen Import v Commission

(Case T-58/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Belgian, German, French and Dutch markets in North Sea shrimp - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law - 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines - Mitigating factors - Substantially limited involvement - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Maximum of 10 % of total turnover - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Paragraph 37 of the 2006 guidelines on the setting of fines - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 328/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG (Marne, Germany) (represented by: J. Sparr, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, secondly, a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the first paragraph of Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the first paragraph of Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2013) 8286 final of 27 November 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.39633 — Shrimps);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as half of those incurred by Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as half of those incurred by Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG;

| 4. | Orders Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG to bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG to bear half of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.

---
§ 573.340 Diatomaceous earth. ( a ) *Identity.* The additive consists of siliceous skeletal material derived from various species of diatoms.
( b ) *Specifications.* The additive shall conform to the following specifications: Lead, not more than 15 parts per million. Arsenic (as As), not more than 20 parts per million Fluorine, not more than 600 parts per million.
( c ) *Uses.* It is used or intended for use as an inert carrier or anticaking agent in animal feeds in an amount not to exceed 2 percent by weight of the total ration.
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the use in this  Registration  Statement  of PSEG Energy  Holdings
Inc. on Form S-4 of our report dated June 14, 2000, appearing in the Prospectus,
which is a part of this Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under
the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey
July 10, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 42 (Thursday, March 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4549]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9121-7]


Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Charter Renewal

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's Farm, Ranch, 
and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) will be renewed for an 
additional two-year period, as a necessary committee which is in the 
public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2. The purpose of the FRRCC 
is to provide advice to the Administrator of EPA on environmental 
issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural 
communities. It is determined that the FRRCC is in the public interest 
in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by 
law. Inquiries may be directed to Alicia Kaiser, U.S. EPA, (mail code 
1101-A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone 
(202) 564-7273, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d5beb4bca6b0a7fbb4b9bcb6bcb495b0a5b4fbb2baa3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="187379716b7d6a367974717b7179587d6879367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 18, 2010.
Lawrence Elworth,
Agricultural Counselor to the Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-4549 Filed 3-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7805 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the right 

of members of a federally recognized Indian Tribe in the United States 

and First Nations individuals in Canada to cross the borders of the 

United States and to be considered lawfully admitted for permanent 

residence. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2024 

Mr. KILMER (for himself, Mr. FULCHER, and Mrs. PELTOLA) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect 

to the right of members of a federally recognized Indian 

Tribe in the United States and First Nations individuals 

in Canada to cross the borders of the United States 

and to be considered lawfully admitted for permanent 

residence. 

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 ‘‘Tribal Border Crossing 

5 Parity Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7805 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEMBERS OF A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN 

2 TRIBE IN THE UNITED STATES OR A FIRST 

3 NATION IN CANADA. 

4 Section 289 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

5 (8 U.S.C. 1359) is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ before ‘‘Nothing’’; 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘who possess at least 50 per 

8 centum of blood of the American Indian race.’’ and 

9 inserting the following: ‘‘who— 

10 ‘‘(1) are members, or are eligible to become 

11 members, of a federally recognized Indian Tribe in 

12 the United States; or 

13 ‘‘(2)(A) has Indian status in Canada through 

14 registration under the Indian Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 

15 I–5); or 

16 ‘‘(B) holds membership in a self-governing 

17 First Nation in Canada.’’; 

18 and 

19 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(b) An individual who is admitted to the United 

21 States pursuant to subsection (a) shall have the status of 

22 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.2900 Microbiological specimen collection and transport device. ( a ) *Identification.* A microbiological specimen collection and transport device is a specimen collecting chamber intended for medical purposes to preserve the viability or integrity of microorganisms in specimens during storage of specimens after their collection and during their transport from the collecting area to the laboratory. The device may be labeled or otherwise represented as sterile. The device aids in the diagnosis of disease caused by pathogenic microorganisms.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device, when solely intended for use in the collection of concentrated parasites from specimens and transport, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 84 FR 71800, Dec. 30, 2019; 85 FR 18445, Apr. 2, 2020]