alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017022EN.01003301.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/33

---

Order of the General Court of 1 December 2016 — STC v Commission

(Case T-355/14) (1)

1

((Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant with a gas turbine - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Withdrawl of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 022/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: STC SpA (Forlì, Italy) (represented by: A. Marelli and G. Delucca, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially L. Di Paolo, F. Moro and L. Cappelletti, then L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: CPL Concordia Soc. coop. (Concordia Sulla Secchia, Italy) (represented by: A. Penta, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, an application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, (i), of the Commission’s decision of 3 April 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure JRC IPR 2013 C04 0031 OC for the construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant with a gas turbine (OJ 2013/S 137-237146) on the site of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra (Italy), (ii) of the Commission’s decision awarding the contract to CPL Concordia and any connected measure, prior or subsequent to that decision, including the potential decision approving the contract and, where appropriate, the contract itself, (iii) the Commission’s letter of 15 April 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request for access to the tendering documents, and second, application requesting, principally, an order for the Commission to revoke the award of the contract and to grant that contract to the applicant, and alternatively, if the harm cannot be repaired, to order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the harm suffered.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | CPL Concordia Soc. coop’s forms of order sought are rejected as being manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

CPL Concordia Soc. coop’s forms of order sought are rejected as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 3. | Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

1

---
NO. 07-02-0009 3-CV IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L D MARC H 19, 2002,

______________________________ RESHAWN L. JOHNSON, Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 36 4TH DIST RICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUN TY; NO. 97-424,513; HON. BRADLEY S . UNDERWO OD, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J, QUINN, REAVIS and JOHNSON, J.J. Re sh awn L. Jo hn so n, (J oh ns on ), a c ur re nt i nma te with th e Texas D epartm ent of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), filed a notice of appeal on February 21, 2002. Howe ver, Johnson did not pay the $125 filling fee required from appellants pu rsuant to Texa s Rule of Appellate Proce dure 5. Nor di d he (at thetim e he not iced his app eal) file an a ffid avit pursuantto Texas Ru le of Appellate Procedure 20.1 relieving him of hi s duty to do so. By letter from this Court dated February 25, 2002, we inform ed appellant that “[u]nles s the filing fee in the am ount of $12 5.0 0 is paid

. . . [ his] app eal w ill be sub j ect to d ism iss al. T EX .2

R. A PP . P. 42.3(c); S ee Holt v . F. F. E nterpri ses , 99 0 S .W.2d 7 56 ( Tex . A pp. --A m arillo 1998, pet. ref’d.). In apparent response to ou r February letter, the court received fromJohnson a docum ententitled Affidavit of Indigency In Lieu of Cost B ond, wherein he represented that he was an indigent. Yet, the affidavit does not com port with the requirem ents of an aff idav itof indigence specified under Texas R ule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(b). Nor w as itfiled within the deadlines set by Texas Rule of Appellate P rocedure 20.1(c)(1) (establishing the deadli ne by which one must requestleave to proceed as a pauper) and 20.1(c)(3) (establi shing the de adli ne by which one mu st seek leave to ex tend the deadline contem plated under 20 .1(c)(1) ). Nor was it accom panied by any m otion for leave to extend eitherof those deadlines. Thus, w e conclude t hat

app ella nt’ s A

ffid avit of I ndig enc

y is ineffective to relieve him from his obligation to pay the aforement ioned fili ng fee. Due to a ppe llant ’s failu re t o pa y th e fili ng f ee, w e dis m iss theapp eal pu rsuant to Texas Rule of A ppellate Procedure 42.3 (c).

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Manufilctured 

~MHARR llouslng ArnKla!lon for Regulatory R•lorm 

Mark Weiss 

President 8 CEO 

mmarkweiss@aol.com 

202-783-4087 

fax 202-783-4075 

MHARRDG@AOL.COM 

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW• Suite 512 •Washington, DC 20004 

P.O. BOX507 

RED BAY, ALABAMA 35582 

jbostick@sunshinehomes-inc.com 

President 

(256) 356-4427 

574.533.0431 - Phone 

574.533.0438 - Fax 

800. 733.0431 

E-MAIL: edward.hussey@ 

libertyhomesinc.com 

LIBERTY HOMES, INC. 

Corporate Office 

1:;~~;;fE~~;~;~~:::6) Edward Joseph Hussey 

"'&'ti ti#'!!* Vice President - Secretary 

General Counsel 

M•nut.ulun>d 

~MHARR l/ou.lngAssodallon ror Regulalnq Refomi 

Danny D. Ghorbani 

President 8 CEO 

dannyghorbani@aol.com 

202-783-4087 

fax 202-783-4075 

MHARRDG@AOL.COM 

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW• Suite 512 •Washington, DC 20004 
/)~ ~r . s. 

c;;? ;y -~~' r/)/-\ 1 

IECC EFFECT \A1J~.r7_ ,/" {?t 'v:,l'.~·. 

'~~ ~'<'tf 

Insulation 

R38-21-22 vs. R28-11-11 

Exterior Doors 

Exterior Walls 

2x6 vs. 2x4 

Windows 

Rafters 

Energy Heel with Flat Ceiling 

Bill of Material Increases 

Selling Price 

lncrease:Wholesale 

50% SOM 

Retail Markup 

1.4 x 

DW 

28X56 

1568 sq. ft. 

641.12 

322.40 

295.00 

641.90 

180.00 

2080.42 

4160.84 

5825.17 

SW 

14X66 

924 sq. ft. 

499.82 

322.40 

264.00 

449.33 

108.00 

1643.55 

3287.10 

4601.94 
>From the public testimony of Don Surrena, CBO 

>National Association of Home Builders 

> Program Manager, Energy Efficiency 

> 

> Begin forwarded message: 

>>> 

>>We estimate that in 2014 the average price of new manufactured homes (including the cost of 

lot development) is $53,230 for single homes and $100,259 for double homes. Increasing the 

price of new single manufactured homes by $1,000 will disqualify 347,901 households from 

being able to afford these homes. Similarly, ifthe price of new double manufactured home rises 

by $1,000, 315,385 households will be priced out ofthe market. The effects are NOT 

cumulative, since they are based on the same income distribution of all US households. These 

are NOT effects on sales, rather only on ability to qualify for a mortgage. 

>> 

>> 

>>Our new manufactured home prices are based on the average sale prices for single and double 

new manufactured homes reported by The Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI). They are 

further adjusted for inflation and additional costs oflot development. The inflation factor is the 

increase in new manufactured home prices from 2012 to 2013 as reported by the MHI. The lot 

development cost adjustment is based on the NAHB survey of construction costs. 

>> 

>>NATALIA SINIAVSKAIA, Ph.D. 

> > Housing Policy Economist 

> > Survey and Housing Policy Research 

>> 

>>National Association of Home Builders 

>> 1201 15th Street, NW 

>>Washington, DC 20005
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1770 Urea nitrogen test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A urea nitrogen test system is a device intended to measure urea nitrogen (an end-product of nitrogen metabolism) in whole blood, serum, plasma, and urine. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of certain renal and metabolic diseases.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
# C_2014245EN.01001701.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/17

---

Action brought on 31 March 2014 — PSL/OHIM — Consortium Ménager Parisien (Representation of a watch)

(Case T-212/14)

2014/C 245/23

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PSL Ltd (Kowloon, Hong-Kong) (represented by: R. Dissmann and J. Bogatz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consortium Ménager Parisien (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2014 in Case R 1495/2012-3; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2014 in Case R 1495/2012-3;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the court as well as the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeals. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the court as well as the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeals.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design representing a watch for goods in Class 10-02 — Community Design No 1 600 560-0001

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community design:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Consortium Menager Parisien

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Lack of individual character within the meaning of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the contested design invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002

Pleas in law:

---
§ 58.190 Storage and retrieval of records and data. ( a ) All raw data, documentation, protocols, final reports, and specimens (except those specimens obtained from mutagenicity tests and wet specimens of blood, urine, feces, and biological fluids) generated as a result of a nonclinical laboratory study shall be retained.
( b ) There shall be archives for orderly storage and expedient retrieval of all raw data, documentation, protocols, specimens, and interim and final reports. Conditions of storage shall minimize deterioration of the documents or specimens in accordance with the requirements for the time period of their retention and the nature of the documents or specimens. A testing facility may contract with commercial archives to provide a repository for all material to be retained. Raw data and specimens may be retained elsewhere provided that the archives have specific reference to those other locations.
( c ) An individual shall be identified as responsible for the archives.
( d ) Only authorized personnel shall enter the archives.
( e ) Material retained or referred to in the archives shall be indexed to permit expedient retrieval.
[43 FR 60013, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 52 FR 33781, Sept. 4, 1987; 67 FR 9585, Mar. 4, 2002]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7500 

To amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to allow an Indian Tribe 

to request CFIUS review of certain transactions between the Indian 

Tribe and foreign persons, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 29, 2024 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER (for himself and Mrs. PELTOLA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in 

addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to allow 

an Indian Tribe to request CFIUS review of certain 

transactions between the Indian Tribe and foreign persons, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7500 IH

1 SECTION 1. REQUESTS BY INDIAN TRIBES FOR CFIUS RE2 VIEW. 

3 Section 721(a)(4) of the Defense Production Act of 

4 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4565(a)(4)) is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following: 

6 ‘‘(G) REQUESTS BY INDIAN TRIBES FOR

7 REVIEW OF TRANSACTIONS.—Upon the written 

8 request of an Indian Tribe (as defined in sec9 tion 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and 

10 Education Assistance Act, (25 U.S.C. 5304(e))) 

11 with respect to a transaction between such In12 dian Tribe and a foreign person (other than an 

13 Indian Tribe), this section shall apply— 

14 ‘‘(i) to such transaction in the same 

15 manner as this section applies to a covered 

16 transaction; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) to the business or real estate 

18 that is the subject of such transaction in 

19 the same manner as this section applies to 

20 a United States business or real estate lo21 cated in the United States.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

74) IV-E-68 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:58:00 AM Sheet 74 of 117 
P.2 

August 2,2000 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Meeting between EPA Officials and Pulp and Paper Industry Representatives 

FROM: Steven Silverman, Attomey 

TO: NSR Rulemaking Docket 

On October 22,1998 senior EPA officials, including Assistant Administrator Perciasepe, 

and Divison Directors Wegman and Jordan met with representatives of the pulp and paper 

industry including Josephine Cooper and representatives from Union Camp, Georgia Pacific and 

other companies. Their subject was the pending NSR rulemaking proposal. They maintained 

that the existing program is too complicated and enforced in an arbitrary manner. They believe 

that too many key decisions turn on interpretations which are not always disclosed and may vary 

from Region to Region. They also question the burden involved in determining whether a 

pollution release increment triggering NSR review has become too complicated, and further 

question means of calculating pollutant increases. 

EPA officials listened carefully and urged the industry to provide specific examples or case 

histories where possible. In addition, the Assistant Administrator noted that the 40 ton increment 

appears to be a concensus value as to when NSR review should be triggered. 

^ . ' • 

EPA AIR DOCKET
Exhibit 34.2 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Ernst & Young LLP) 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We have examined management’s****assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment ofCompliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S.Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities****Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2018, exceptfor****servicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them withrespect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established bythe American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise thePlatform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred eitherprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidencewe obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedservicing criteria as of and for the year ended March 31, 2018, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Minneapolis,Minnesota 

May 31, 2018
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of The Timberland Company (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:



| |  | /s/JEFFREY B. SWARTZJeffrey B. Swartz
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:    August 7,
2002

---

QuickLinks
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors andshareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the"Company"), a subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with theservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loanoutsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial taxservice provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and forthe year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii),1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii)and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to theservicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Managementis responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicableservicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicingactivities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errorsthat may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may haveaffected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company duringthe period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determinationon the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 forall loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which theCompany served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas TX 75201-2997*

*T: 214-746-6500, F:214-712-6660,*www.pwc.com
# RECEIVED

U.S. IH:PARTMlcNT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVtATION AD!\UNISTRATlON 

# JUN 1 3 2014 HEARING DOCKET

FEDERAL.-\ VIATION ADMINISTRATION.**Cntnplain~mt,** \'S LIBERTY FOUNDATION. Respondent. Docket No. FAA-2012-0477 FAA Case No. 2011GL030070

Judge Sullivan

JOINT PROPOSE[) WRITTEN CLOSING ARGliMENT SCHJ<:Dl/LE**Pursu~mt** to the-**Judg\.~'s** insll'uctions at the clLISC of hearing in this matter, the parties hereby submit the**f~1llov** .. ·ing proposeJ schedule l'(lr wriHen closing arguments: Compbinunr"s Closing**.:\rgum~m:** Submiued un or hcfon.!' June 30.2014.

Complainant's Rebuttal**Closin.~** Argument:**~ubmitted** on rir befol·e September 8, 2014. Nn closing**argum~nt submi~~sions** **b~:.·;** (Jfl.d the**thre~** .1!:-:tcd abo\'_e \V(Jllid he**permitt~d** without prior**!~ave** of 

### rhe C()urt.

Respectfully wbmitkd lhi&

# 6~ June. 2014.**Christoph~r Sk•vcn~(m**  FAA Office of the Regional Counsel 1701 Columbia ,\,em>c 

### Co.! lege Park. (i-\ 

### _10337 Couttsel :for the Cnmplainam

# ,~i-~tf;::_.

# ____ Stuan /\. Ooldstem ' \tuart A. Goldstein, P,A. 7300 Nonh Kendall (Jrive. Suite 380 \·liami. FL 331.56 Cmmsd f(Jr 

### the Respondent

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Joint Proposed Written Closing Argument Schedule was sent: Original and one copy via certified mail to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 One copy via certified mail to: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-20 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536 Stuart A. 

### Goldstein, P .A. 

### 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 Miami, FL 33156

Dated I