alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016335EN.01001001.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral SA, KBC Finance Ireland v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-18/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Taxation of interest received - Difference in treatment between resident financial institutions and non-resident financial institutions))

(2016/C 335/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral SA, KBC Finance Ireland

Applicants:

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC does not preclude national legislation under which a procedure for withholding tax at source is applied to the income of financial institutions that are not resident in the Member State in which the services are provided, whereas the income received by financial institutions that are resident in that Member State is not subject to such withholding tax, provided that the application of the withholding tax to the non-resident financial institutions is justified by an overriding reason in the general interest and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued.

Article 49 EC precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, as a general rule, taxes non-resident financial institutions on the interest income received within the Member State concerned without giving them the opportunity to deduct business expenses directly related to the activity in question, whereas such an opportunity is given to resident financial institutions.

It is for the national court to assess, on the basis of its national law, which business expenses may be regarded as being directly related to the activity in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

1

---
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet at the USDA Service Center in Redding, California, on March 31, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss project updates and proposals, information on monitoring efforts, and a timeline for the upcoming year.

# DATES:

Wednesday, March 31 at 8:30 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the USDA Service Center, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, California 96002.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator Ray Mooney at (530) 226-2494 or                         *jmooney@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee.

Dated: March 10, 2010.

J. Sharon Heywood,

Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

[FR Doc. 2010-4957 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE M
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.5070 Air-handling apparatus for a surgical operating room. ( a ) *Identification.* Air-handling apparatus for a surgical operating room is a device intended to produce a directed, nonturbulent flow of air that has been filtered to remove particulate matter and microorganisms to provide an area free of contaminants to reduce the possibility of infection in the patient.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device, when it is an air handling bench apparatus, an air handling room apparatus, or an air handling enclosure apparatus, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 878.9.
[53 FR 23872, June 24, 1988, as amended at 84 FR 71814, Dec. 30, 2019]
#### Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. Domitrowich, etc.

November 19, 1951.

*Robert H. Jordan,*for plaintiff.

*John E. Stine, Jr.,*for defendant.

Henninger, P. J.,

— Plaintiff holds a judgment against defendant to above term and number as assignee of Smith & Fields Distributing Company, payee of the note upon which judgment was entered by confession.

Defendant, before execution was issued, petitioned to open the judgment, whereupon this court granted a rule to open and in granting the rule stayed all proceedings thereon. Plaintiff filed preliminary objections to the petition and order on the grounds that no stay of execution was permissible without entry of bond. This court, in an opinion by our learned colleague, Judge Diefenderfer, held that the court rule referring to stay of execution did not apply to stays of proceedings where no execution had in fact issued.

Plaintiff thereupon filed an answer to the petition to open judgment, which answer calls for proof of averments of transactions between defendant and his *93payee which defendant contends renders the obligation uncollectible; it raises the point that the note being, in its opinion, negotiable, such defense is not available to defendant, and the answer is sworn to by one Judy M. Underwood, who professes to act as an attorney-in-fact for plaintiff.

At the same time plaintiff filed a petition for a rule to show cause why security should not be given for stay of proceedings.

Defendant filed preliminary objections to the answer for faulty execution and because of bald denials. He also filed preliminary objections to the rule for security contending that that matter had been already adjudicated.

There is merit to the latter preliminary objection. Since the court has already held that defendant was entitled to attack the judgment and to a stay meanwhile without entering security, plaintiff’s petition for security raises a question we have already adjudicated in this case and we cannot pass upon it again.

When we come to the preliminary objections to the answer to the rule to open judgment, we must bear in mind that, since plaintiff has already obtained judgment against defendant, it is up to defendant to prosecute the rule and to demonstrate his right to relief. We are not deeply interested in technicalities of verification of the answer to the rule.

The answer properly denies the allegations by which defendant seeks to open the judgment. Again we must remember that the burden is on defendant to prove his allegations and not on plaintiff to disprove them. Those parts of the answer which may be conclusions of law may be considered when the facts have been established.

Now, November 19, 1951, defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiff’s rule for security for stay of *94execution are sustained and the rule is discharged; defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiff’s answer to the rule to open the judgment to above term and number are dismissed and it is ordered that defendant proceed promptly to the taking of depositions to establish the facts relied upon to open the judgment.
# C_2014372EN.01000201.xml

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/2

---

Appeal brought on 31 March 2014 by Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2014 in Case T-47/13 Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Christin Vieweg

Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Christin Vieweg

(Case C-150/14 P)

2014/C 372/02

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Christin Vieweg

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 4 September 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
§ 884.2600 Fetal cardiac monitor. ( a ) *Identification.* A fetal cardiac monitor is a device used to ascertain fetal heart activity during pregnancy and labor. The device is designed to separate fetal heart signals from maternal heart signals by analyzing electrocardiographic signals (electrical potentials generated during contraction and relaxation of heart muscle) obtained from the maternal abdomen with external electrodes. This generic type of device may include an alarm that signals when the heart rate crosses a preset threshold. This generic type of device includes the “fetal cardiotachometer (with sensors)” and the “fetal electrocardiographic monitor.”
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 10 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk July 10 , 2020

159857 (76)

LINDA RIVERA,

Plain tiff

- Appellant,

SC: 159857

v COA: 341516

Saginaw CC: 16

- 031756

- NZ

SVRC INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of the Michigan Association for Justice to

file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED

. The amicus brief submitted on Ju ne 1 6 , 2020 , is

accepted for filing

.
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1380 Diagnostic condensing lens. ( a ) *Identification.* A diagnostic condensing lens is a device used in binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (a procedure that produces an inverted or reversed direct magnified image of the eye) intended to focus reflected light from the fundus of the eye.
( 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. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 35604, Sept. 14, 1988; 66 FR 38810, July 25, 2001]
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. OR10-9-000]

Take notice that on January 29, 2010, Enbridge Pipelines (North Dakota) LLC (Enbridge), with the support of twelve Shippers and a Connecting Pipeline, submitted a modification to the Offer of Settlement (Supplement) approved in Docket No. OR06-9-000 (The Looping Surcharge), 117 FERC ¶ 61,131 (2006).

                    Any person desiring to intervene and comment on this Supplement to the Settlement should submit an original and 14 copies of its comments and motion to intervene with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, no later than 5 p.m. Eastern time on March 5, 2010. Reply comments will be due no later than 5 p.m. Eastern time on March 12, 2010.                          ( print page 11167)    

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     The filings in this proceeding are accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubcription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-4994 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7863 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue guidance 

on furnishing behavioral health services via telehealth to individuals with 

limited English proficiency under Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2024 

Mrs. STEEL (for herself, Mr. BILIRAKIS, and Ms. LEE of Nevada) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

to issue guidance on furnishing behavioral health services 

via telehealth to individuals with limited English proficiency under Medicare program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GUIDANCE ON FURNISHING BEHAVIORAL 

4 HEALTH SERVICES VIA TELEHEALTH TO IN5 DIVIDUALS WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PRO6 FICIENCY UNDER MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

7 Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

8 of this section, the Secretary of Health and Human ServVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:38 Apr 13, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7863.IH H7863

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7863 IH

1 ices shall issue and disseminate, or update and revise as 

2 applicable, guidance on the following: 

3 (1) Best practices for providers to work with in4 terpreters to furnish behavioral health services via 

5 video-based and audio-only telehealth, when video6 based telehealth is not an option. 

7 (2) Best practices on integrating the use of 

8 video platforms that enable multi-person video calls 

9 into behavioral health services furnished via tele10 health. 

11 (3) Best practices on teaching patients, espe12 cially those with limited English proficiency, to use 

13 video-based telehealth platforms. 

14 (4) Best practices for providing patient mate15 rials, communications, and instructions in multiple 

16 languages, including text message appointment re17 minders and prescription information. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1340 Haploscope. ( a ) *Identification.* A haploscope is an AC-powered device that consists of two movable viewing tubes, each containing a slide carrier, a low-intensity light source for the illumination of the slides, and a high-intensity light source for creating afterimages. The device is intended to measure strabismus (eye muscle imbalance), to assess binocular vision (use of both eyes to see), and to treat suppression and amblyopia (dimness of vision without any apparent disease of the eye).
( 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.
[55 FR 48441, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63012, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38810, July 25, 2001]
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132127 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132127 COA: 270706 Wayne CC: 05-002666 JOSEPH WALTER PEACOCK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the A ugust 4, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
FIRST	COAST	AERIAL	IMAGING	MISSION	CHECKLIST

Aircraft:		N

Date:

Location/Mission:

Preflight	Planning

o Aircraft/Controller/Battery	Firmware	Up-to-Date

o Weather	Forecast

o FAA	/	Local	Rules	Cleared

o Permissions	from	local	agencies	and	participating	individuals

o Obstructions	in	area	noted

o Brief	Visual	Observer	of	planned	mission

System

o Aircraft/Controller/Display	Batteries	charged

o All	cables	in	good	condition

o All	propellers	in	good	condition

o Airframe	free	of	damage

o Gimbal/Camera	attached	properly

o Launch	Location	Checked

Post	Start

o Controller	Interface	good	with	aircraft

o Satisfactory	GPS	satellites received

o Battery	Level	Acceptable

o Calibrate	Compass

o Check	IMU

o Check	Flight	Mode

o Proper	Home	Point	Established

o Check	Propellers	After	Motor	Start

o Clear	Launch	Area

Launch

o Hover	10-15	feet	above	ground

o Check	for	drift

o Check	stick	response

o Check	controller	display	for	alerts

o Check	Satellite	Integrity

Mission

o Monitor	Battery	Level

o Monitor	Obstructions	in	Area

o Monitor	Aircraft	Response	

o Note	any	Home	Point	Changes

o Clear	Landing	Area

After	Landing

o Check	Propeller	Condition

o Check	for	Damage	to	Aircraft

o Check	for	Systems	Malfunctions

o Battery	Number_____ Flight	Time__________Battery	Percentage	Remaining _____

o Battery	Number_____ Flight	Time__________Battery Percentage	Remaining _____

o Battery	Number_____ Flight	Time__________Battery	Percentage	Remaining _____
§ 803.9 What information from the reports do we disclose to the public? ( a ) We may disclose to the public any report, including any FDA record of a telephone report, submitted under this part. Our disclosures are governed by part 20 of this chapter.
( b ) Before we disclose a report to the public, we will delete the following: ( 1 ) Any information that constitutes trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information under § 20.61 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Any personal, medical, and similar information, including the serial number of implanted devices, which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy under § 20.63 of this chapter. However, if a patient requests a report, we will disclose to that patient all the information in the report concerning that patient, as provided in § 20.61 of this chapter; and
( 3 ) Any names and other identifying information of a third party that voluntarily submitted an adverse event report.
( c ) We may not disclose the identity of a device user facility that makes a report under this part except in connection with: ( 1 ) An action brought to enforce section 301(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(q)), including the failure or refusal to furnish material or information required by section 519 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i));
( 2 ) A communication to a manufacturer of a device that is the subject of a report required to be submitted by a user facility under § 803.30; or
( 3 ) A disclosure to employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, to the Department of Justice, or to the duly authorized committees and subcommittees of the Congress.
§ 876.2100 Pressure ulcer management tool. ( a ) *Identification.* A pressure ulcer management tool is a prescription device intended for patients at risk of developing pressure ulcers. The device provides output that supports a user's decision to increase intervention. The device is an adjunct tool for pressure ulcer management that is not intended for detection or diagnostic purposes.
( 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 § 876.9.
[86 FR 70735, Dec. 13, 2021]