alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014409EN.01004402.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/44

---

Action brought on 23 July 2014 — HB and Others v Commission

(Case T-361/14)

2014/C 409/64

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: HB and Others (Linz, Austria) Hans Joachim Richter (Bremen, Germany); Carmen Arsene (Pitesti, Romania); Robert Coates Smith (Glatton, United Kingdom); Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska (Warsaw, Poland); Nathalie Louise Klinge (Zuidbroek, Netherlands); and Christos Yiapanis (Paphos, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Kolar, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission decision of 26 March 2014 which rejected registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission decision of 26 March 2014 which rejected registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim, in essence, that by the decision which rejected registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’, the Commission had failed to observe the limits of its competence and infringed its duty to protect, the general prohibition of arbitrariness and Articles 11 and 13 TFEU.

---
|Exhibit 99.1



Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:


(1)
The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)
The information contained in the accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  November 11, 2002
/s/ Marti Morfitt

Marti Morfitt
President & Chief Executive Officer

/s/ David J. Byrd

Vice President of Finance,
Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2017392EN.01000401.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 — Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation v European Commission

(Case C-89/15 P P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian producers of reinforcing bars - Fixing of prices and limiting and controlling output and sales - Infringement of Article 65 CS - Annulment of the initial decision by the General Court of the European Union - Decision re-adopted on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Failure to issue a new statement of objections - Lack of a hearing following the annulment of the initial decision - Time taken in the proceedings before the General Court))

(2017/C 392/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation (represented by: M. Merola, M. Pappalardo, T. Ubaldi and M. Toniolo, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and P. Rossi, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Manzini, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 December 2014, Riva Fire v Commission (T-83/10, not published, EU:T:2014:1034); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 December 2014, Riva Fire v Commission (T-83/10, not published, EU:T:2014:1034);

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it concerns Riva Fire SpA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it concerns Riva Fire SpA;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Riva Fire SpA both at first instance and in the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Riva Fire SpA both at first instance and in the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

1

---
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-0822

 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM210AD

SB 670BA-35-013, Rev A --- 9/23/13

SB 670BA-35-013 --- 5/21/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Exhibit 34.3

CURCIO

+COHEN

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Managing Member

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC

New York, NY

We have examined managements assertion,
included in the accompanying Managements Report on Assessment of 2015 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (Managements Report), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the
Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, excluding those criteria noted as not applicable
(N/A) within Exhibit B to Managements Report. The transactions covered by this report are only those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the
Platform) identified in Managements Report. Reference Exhibit A to Managements Report for the transactions covered by this examination. Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in
accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, including examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and
performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selected sample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected the Companys servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We
believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to
Managements Report with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Managements Report as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, for the Platform, is fairly stated in all material aspects.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ Curcio & Cohen, CPAS, P.C.
|                               
|New York, NY                   
|February 15, 2016              

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS PC 7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001

TEL: 212 557-9800  FAX: 212 557 9819  WEBSITE: WWW.CWCCPAFIRM.COM
#### Brothers, Inc. *v.*Ansonia Redevelopment Agency

*Irwin E. Friedman,*on the motion.

Submitted January 20

decided January 22, 1969

The motion by the plaintiff for continuance to the March, 1969, term of the argument of the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied.
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3380 Hip joint femoral (hemi-hip) trunnion-bearing metal/polyacetal cemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A hip joint femoral (hemi-hip) trunnion-bearing metal/polyacetal cemented prosthesis is a two-part device intended to be implanted to replace the head and neck of the femur. This generic type of device includes prostheses that consist of a metallic stem made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, with an integrated cylindrical trunnion bearing at the upper end of the stem that fits into a recess in the head of the device. The head of the device is made of polyacetal (polyoxymethylene) and it is covered by a metallic alloy, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum. The trunnion bearing allows the head of the device to rotate on its stem. The prosthesis is intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class III.
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before December 26, 1996 for any hip joint femoral (hemi-hip) trunnion-bearing metal/polyacetal cemented prosthesis that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before December 26, 1996 been found to be substantially equivalent to a hip joint femoral (hemi-hip) trunnion-bearing metal/polyacetal cemented prosthesis that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other hip joint femoral (hemi-hip) trunnion-bearing metal/polyacetal cemented prosthesis shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[52 FR 33702, Sept. 4, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 50710, Sept. 27, 1996]
§ 601.3 Complete response letter to the applicant. ( a ) *Complete response letter.* The Food and Drug Administration will send the biologics license applicant or supplement applicant a complete response letter if the agency determines that it will not approve the biologics license application or supplement in its present form. ( 1 ) *Description of specific deficiencies.* A complete response letter will describe all of the deficiencies that the agency has identified in a biologics license application or supplement, except as stated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) *Inadequate data.* If FDA determines, after a biologics license application or supplement is filed, that the data submitted are inadequate to support approval, the agency might issue a complete response letter without first conducting required inspections, testing submitted product lots, and/or reviewing proposed product labeling.
( 3 ) *Recommendation of actions for approval.* When possible, a complete response letter will recommend actions that the applicant might take to place its biologics license application or supplement in condition for approval.
( b ) *Applicant actions.* After receiving a complete response letter, the biologics license applicant or supplement applicant must take either of the following actions: ( 1 ) *Resubmission.* Resubmit the application or supplement, addressing all deficiencies identified in the complete response letter.
( 2 ) *Withdrawal.* Withdraw the application or supplement. A decision to withdraw the application or supplement is without prejudice to a subsequent submission.
( c ) *Failure to take action.* ( 1 ) FDA may consider a biologics license applicant or supplement applicant's failure to either resubmit or withdraw the application or supplement within 1 year after issuance of a complete response letter to be a request by the applicant to withdraw the application or supplement, unless the applicant has requested an extension of time in which to resubmit the application or supplement. FDA will grant any reasonable request for such an extension. FDA may consider an applicant's failure to resubmit the application or supplement within the extended time period or request an additional extension to be a request by the applicant to withdraw the application.
( 2 ) If FDA considers an applicant's failure to take action in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section to be a request to withdraw the application, the agency will notify the applicant in writing. The applicant will have 30 days from the date of the notification to explain why the application or supplement should not be withdrawn and to request an extension of time in which to resubmit the application or supplement. FDA will grant any reasonable request for an extension. If the applicant does not respond to the notification within 30 days, the application or supplement will be deemed to be withdrawn.
[73 FR 39611, July 10, 2008]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-71,233]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, a certification was issued on December 10, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers at Advance Accessory Systems, Shelbyville, Michigan.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA-W-70,522A), which expires on July 23, 2011. Therefore, to avoid duplication in certification issued on December 10, 2009, TA-W-71,233 has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of February 2010.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-4573 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.4360 Ocular surgery irrigation device. ( a ) *Identification.* An ocular surgery irrigation device is a device intended to be suspended over the ocular area during ophthalmic surgery to deliver continuous, controlled irrigation to the surgical field.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 35606, Sept. 14, 1988; 59 FR 63013, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38813, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5370 Cohn fraction V immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A Cohn fraction V immunological test system is a device that consists of or measures that fraction of plasma containing predominantly albumin (a plasma protein). This test aids in the diagnosis of diseases where albumin levels may be depressed, e.g., nephrosis (disease of the kidney), proteinuria (protein in the urine), gastroenteropathy (disease of the stomach and small intestine), rheumatoid arthritis, and viral hepatitis.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device 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 59 FR 63007, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38793, July 25, 2001]
§ 884.5470 Unscented menstrual tampon. ( a ) *Identification.* An unscented menstrual tampon is a device that is a plug made of cellulosic or synthetic material that is inserted into the vagina and used to absorb menstrual or other vaginal discharge. This generic type of device does not include menstrual tampons treated with scent (i.e., fragrance materials) or those with added antimicrobial agents or other drugs.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
# L_2019138EN.01008901.xml

| 24.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 138/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 138/89

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2019/846

of 21 May 2019

appointing two members of the Court of Auditors

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to the proposals by Romania and the Republic of Croatia,

Having regard to the opinions of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | The term of office of Mr George PUFAN is due to expire on 30 June 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The term of office of Mr George PUFAN is due to expire on 30 June 2019.

| (2) | The term of office of Mr Neven MATES is due to expire on 14 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The term of office of Mr Neven MATES is due to expire on 14 July 2019.

| (3) | Two new members should therefore be appointed to the Court of Auditors, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Two new members should therefore be appointed to the Court of Auditors,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed members of the Court of Auditors:

| (a) | Mr Viorel ȘTEFAN for the period from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2025; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Mr Viorel ȘTEFAN for the period from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2025;

| (b) | Ms Ivana MALETIĆ for the period from 15 July 2019 to 14 July 2025. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Ms Ivana MALETIĆ for the period from 15 July 2019 to 14 July 2025.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 21 May 2019.

For the Council

The President

G. CIAMBA

---

(1)  Opinions of 16 April 2019 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

---
#### McRae *v.*Atlanta Title & Trust Co. *et al.*

No. 8414.

February 10, 1932.

*William G. McRae,*for plaintiff.

*Tye, Thomson & Tye, Harold Hvrsch, Marion Smith, M. H. Kilpatrick,*and *Charles B. Shelton,*for defendant.

Beck, P. J.

Applying the rulings made by this court in the case of At*lanta Title & Trust Co.*v. *Tidwell,*173 *Ga.*499 (160 S. E. 620), to the controlling questions in the present case as they are made by the pleadings and the evidence, the court did not err in refusing an interlocutory injunction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Russell, G. J., and Himes, J., who dissent.*

Gilbert, J., co.ncurs specially for reasons stated in his special concurrence in the case cited above.
FAA 333 Exemption

5-18-15

To whom it may concern,

My name is Brook Aitken from Boulder Colorado and I am a professional Cinematographer. I have been in the business and self employed for over 18 years. Most of my work involves filming, tv shows, commercials, and documentaries as a contractor. My resume includes several awards including an Academy Award for the film “The Cove”. In the last few years as Aerial Drone photography & cinematography has expanded I have hired numerous companies to fly for me. I have a healthy understanding of aeronautics and a descent amount of practical experience as an uno ffi cial student/co-pilot in my colleague's Cessna 182 and twin engine Piper Seneca, having logged over 40hrs (not towards a rating). I have flown numerous missions filming out of small planes and helicopters, military and civilian flights internationally and domestically. Some of my clients include National Geographic, Discovery Channel, Outdoor Channel, Anschutz Corporation and they recognize the need for aerial drone imagery. I have taken it upon myself to expand my business and buy a DJI Inspire One drone in order to remain competitive in my field. I have flown dozens of safe flights thus far with zero incidents and have abided by the 400ft ceiling regulations, VFR, never above
crowds or tra ffi c, not within a 5 mile radius of any airport and only on approved land. I have also taken it upon myself to speak with the local Parks & Open Space o ffi cials, State Park Rangers & National Forrest Service in order to confirm the local laws in my particular area of flights. I am also a member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics member # 1070493 and have supplemental insurance. Recently I lost two jobs because they actually required that I have the FAA 333 exemption in order to fly for them. One job was on Government property and was told that the drone pilot absolutely had to have the FAA 333. If there were to be further blanket regulations placed on aerial drone cinematography my business would certainly su ff er. I understand the need for more regulation and completely agree that we need it to happen as soon as possible. The sheer number of hobbyist taking to flying drones is amazing becoming potentially dangerous as well as making it unsafe for the rest of us that take it seriously and make a living doing it.

Sincerely,

Brook Aitken Cinematographer
Boulder Co 80303
www.brookaitken.com