alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Journal officiel L 281/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0693 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l’Union européenne | L 281 |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Législation | 63e année28 août 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0693

Journal officiel

de l’Union européenne

L 281

Édition de langue française

Législation

63e année28 août 2020

---

| Sommaire | | II   Actes non législatifs | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACCORDS INTERNATIONAUX |
| | * | Informations concernant l’entrée en vigueur de l’accord portant extinction des traités bilatéraux d’investissement entre États membres de l’Union européenne | 1 |

Sommaire

II   Actes non législatifs

page

ACCORDS INTERNATIONAUX

*

Informations concernant l’entrée en vigueur de l’accord portant extinction des traités bilatéraux d’investissement entre États membres de l’Union européenne

1

| FR | Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères maigres sont des actes de gestion courante pris dans le cadre de la politique agricole et ayant généralement une durée de validité limitée.
  Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères gras et précédés d'un astérisque sont tous les autres actes. |
| --- | --- |

FR

Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères maigres sont des actes de gestion courante pris dans le cadre de la politique agricole et ayant généralement une durée de validité limitée.

Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères gras et précédés d'un astérisque sont tous les autres actes.

---

II Actes non législatifs

ACCORDS INTERNATIONAUX

| 28.8.2020 | FR | Journal officiel de l’Union européenne | L 281/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2020

FR

Journal officiel de l’Union européenne

L 281/1

---

Informations concernant l’entrée en vigueur de l’accord portant extinction des traités bilatéraux d’investissement entre États membres de l’Union européenne

L’accord portant extinction des traités bilatéraux d’investissement entre États membres de l’Union européenne, signé à Bruxelles le 5 mai 2020
   (1), entrera en vigueur le 29 août 2020, conformément à l’article 16, paragraphe 1, dudit accord.

1

---

(1)  
  JO L 169 du 29.5.2020.

1

---
#### § 1.673(d)-1 Postponement of date specified for reacquisition.

Any postponement of the date specified for the reacquisition of possession or enjoyment of any reversionary interest is considered a new transfer in trust commencing with the date on which the postponement is effected and terminating with the date prescribed by the postponement. However, the grantor will not be treated as the owner of any portion of a trust for any taxable year by reason of the foregoing sentence if he would not be so treated in the absence of any postponement. The rules contained in this section may be illustrated by the following example:

# Example.

G places property in trust for the benefit of his son B. Upon the expiration of 12 years or the earlier death of B the property is to be paid over to G or his estate. After the expiration of 9 years G extends the term of the trust for an additional 2 years. G is considered to have made a new transfer in trust for a term of 5 years (the remaining 3 years of the original transfer plus the 2-year extension). However, he is not treated as the owner of the trust under section 673 for the first 3 years of the new term because he would not be so treated if the term of the trust had not been extended. G is treated as the owner of the trust, however, for the remaining 2 years.
----

Action brought on 17 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-426/06)

(2006/C 326/60)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and M. Konstantinidis)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Greek authorities transposed Directive 2000/60/EC into Greek law by Law 3199/2003, which was published in the Official Gazette (FEK/A/280/9.12.2003) and notified to the Commission as the national measure of transposition. Examination of the conformity of that legislative act with Directive 2000/60/EC has shown that it is a law which requires specification by way of the adoption of implementing measures by which all the provisions of the directive will be transposed.

In the Commission's view, exact transposition of the directive into Greek law has particular significance in the present case because Directive 2000/60/EC, on account of its extended subject-matter and scope of application constitutes a legislative text of fundamental importance as regards the protection and viable management of water.

The Greek authorities recognise, moreover, that the directive has not been transposed fully and that the adoption of additional measures is necessary; the procedure for the adoption of such measures has begun but has not yet been completed.

----

(1)OJ L 327 of 22.12.2000, p. 1.

----
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 The undersigned officer of Summit Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), that, to such officer's knowledge:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: July 28, 2004Blaise B. Bettendorf, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 
 
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Summit Financial Corporation and will be retained by Summit Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
RE: Interagency revisions to EPA proposed Biogenic emissions language

Kymn, Christine J. to: Raj Rao, Lisa Sutton, Anna Wood 

1 attachment

 Interagency edits3_Proposed language, biogenic GHG sources, EPA NPRMs, Actions to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the PAll,Attached please find proposed edits to the FIP proposal (inserting one sentence in lieu of sentence and mirroring the first paragraph of the agreed upon SIP proposal language). The language is resolved at this stage. Please let me know EPA's response. Thanks,Christine-----Original Message-----From: Rao.Raj@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Rao.Raj@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:57 PMTo: Kymn, Christine J.Subject: Re: Interagency revisions to EPA proposed Biogenic emissions languageHi Christine,Thanks for these comments. We are reviewing and considering the edits and will get back trajRaj Rao, P.E.Group Leader, NSRGOAQPS/AQPD(MD- C504-03)109 TW Alexander DriveRTP, NC 27709919-541-5344919-541-5509 faxNote: Positions or views expressed here do not represent official EPA policy. InteragencConfidential.
 From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov> 

 To: Raj Rao/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lisa Sutton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Anna Wood/DC/USEPA/U Date: 08/03/2010 12:03 PM  Subject: Interagency revisions to EPA proposed Biogenic emissions language Raj, Lisa, Anna,Greetings. Attached please find proposed edits to EPA’s suggested biogenic GHG language. sometime today about these if possible.Thanks,Christine202.395.4638(See attached file: Interagency edits1_Proposed language, biogenic GHG sourcesActions to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the PSD Program to Sources of GHG Emissattached file: Interagency edits2_Proposed language, biogenic GHG sources, EPA NPRMs, ActiAuthority to Issue Permits under the PSD Program to Sources of GHG Emissions.docx)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TYREUK BELLAMY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 163 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of October, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6672-1 Failure to collect and pay over tax, or attempt to evade or defeat tax.

Any person required to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over any tax imposed by the Code who willfully fails to collect such tax, or truthfully account for and pay over such tax, or willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any such tax or the payment thereof, shall, in addition to other penalties, be liable to a penalty equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected, or not accounted for and paid over. The penalty imposed by section 6672 applies only to the collection, accounting for, or payment over of taxes imposed on a person other than the person who is required to collect, account for, and pay over such taxes. No penalty under section 6653, relating to failure to pay tax, shall be imposed for any offense to which this section is applicable. For further guidance regarding the determination of the proper address for mailing the notice required under section 6672(b)(1), see § 301.6212-2.

[32 FR 15241, Nov. 3, 1967, as amended by T.D. 8939, 66 FR 2821, Jan. 12, 2001]
Order entered December 12, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01360-CR

JUSTIN ROBERT BOYCE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 063963

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s December 7, 2016 second motion to extend time to file his reply 

brief and ORDER the reply brief filed no later than December 16, 2016.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### § 15a.453-2 Installment obligations received as liquidating distribution. [Reserved]
39499.

#### BENTON v. ABSTON.

Decided May 17, 1962.

*Frank M. Gleason,*for plaintiff in error.

*John E. Wiggins,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Joseph F. Abston sued Preston Benton in the Superior Court of C'atoosa County for damages allegedly resulting from injuries sustained while riding in an automobile owned by the defendant Preston Benton, and driven by his minor son, Lebrón Benton, when the automobile got out of control and left the highway. The defendant filed a purely defensive answer which denied all material allegations of the petition, but failed to pray for any affirmative relief. Thereafter, plaintiff, without first obtaining leave of the court, voluntarily dismissed said suit by directing the Clerk of the Superior Court of Catoosa County to strike same from the dockets of said court; the defendant then filed his motion to vacate and set aside the order of dismissal filed by the plaintiff; plaintiff then filed an answer and demurrer to such motion and when said demurrer came on for hearing and after argument of counsel, the trial court sustained same dismissing defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside said order of dismissal. Defendant excepted, assigns error and brings the case here for review. *Held:*

Where, as here, it is not contended by plaintiff in error that the answer filed was in the nature of a cross-action, and no affirmative relief being prayed for, the answer is obviously purely defensive, and defendant in error was clearly within his rights to dismiss his action, either in term or vacation, without any leave or order of the court. *Davenport v. Hardman,*184 Ga. 518 (192 SE 11); *Kean v. Lathrop,*58 Ga. 355; *Ayers v. Lamb,*65 Ga. 627; *Evans v. Sheldon,*69 Ga. 100; *Jackson v. Roane,*96 Ga. 40 (23 SE 118); *Kiser Co. v. Bonnett,*157 Ga. 555 (122 SE 338). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the motion to set aside and vacate the order of dismissal.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum an.d Jordan, JJ., concur.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6413-1 Special rules applicable to certain employment taxes.

For regulations under section 6413, see §§ 31.6413(a)-1 to 31.6413(c)-1, inclusive, of this chapter (Employment Tax Regulations).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 185 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 185

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Members should understand and 
 use the Internet to improve the democratic process, communicate with 
                        the Internet community.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 1996

    Mr. White (for himself and Mr. Boucher) submitted the following 
  concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                               Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress that Members should understand and 
 use the Internet to improve the democratic process, communicate with 
                        the Internet community.

Whereas approximately 18,000,000 people use the Internet and nearly 100,000,000 
        expect to use it by 1998;
Whereas the Internet is changing the way the world communicates, conducts 
        business, and educates;
Whereas the Internet can lead to a more open democratic process if fully 
        utilized by elected representatives;
Whereas many Members of the House of Representatives and Senate do not use 
        electronic mail or worldwide web sites;
Whereas an increase in the usage and knowledge by Members of the Internet will 
        lead to better policy decisions regarding the Internet and better 
        communications with the Internet community: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) Congress should educate itself about the Internet and 
        use the technology in personal, committee, and leadership 
        offices;
            (2) Congress should work in a bipartisan and bicameral 
        fashion to facilitate the growth and advancement of the 
        Internet;
            (3) Congress should maximize the openness of and 
        participation in government by the people via the Internet so 
        that our constituents can have more information from and more 
        access to their elected representatives;
            (4) Congress should promote commerce and free flow of 
        information on the Internet;
            (5) Congress should advance the United States' world 
        leadership in the digital world by avoiding the passage of laws 
        that stifle innovation and increase regulation of the Internet; 
        and
            (6) Congress should work with the Internet community to 
        receive its input on the issues affecting the Internet that 
        come before Congress.
                                 <all>
```
#### Smith v. Smith

*Wade K. Newell,*for plaintiff.

August 15, 1952.

Morrow, J.,

The complaint in divorce states that plaintiff and defendant were married September 30, 1950, at Washington, Pa. It avers as cause for divorce from the bonds of matrimony that “Alfred E. Smith, the defendant herein did on the 27th day of September, 1950, plead guilty in the Court of Quarter Sessions in the County of Washington, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of the crimes of burglary, larceny and burglary, and was thereupon by said court sentenced to undergo, at the Western Penitentiary, at Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, a term of imprisonment therefore for the period of not less than three (3) nor more than six (6) years.”

Then follows a recital of a reduction of the sentence, on November 10, 1950, to a minimum of two and a maximum of four years. The certified copy of the record offered in evidence shows that defendant did plead guilty and was sentenced on September 27, 1950. The testimony of plaintiff before the master states that the marriage, as averred in the complaint, was actually on September 30, 1950. She testifies that defendant told her he was being held for a hearing for *536driving without a license. She did not aver in her complaint that she was asking for a divorce under that provision of the Divorce Act of March 19, 1943, P. L. 2-1, 23 PS §10, relating to the procuring of marriage by fraud. Her complaint is based on the provision of this act reading in part:

> . . , it shall be lawful for the innocent and injured spouse to obtain a divorce from the bond of matrimony, whenever it shall be judged, in the manner hereinafter provided, that the other spouse: . . . (h) Shall have been convicted ... of the crime of arson, burglary, . . . larceny, . . . and be sentenced to imprisonment for any term of two years or more by a competent court having jurisdiction.”

From the conclusions of law in the master’s report we quote:

> “The facts proven show that defendant has been convicted as principal or accessory within this Commonwealth of the crime of burglary and has been sentenced to a maximum-of two years by a competent court having jurisdiction.”

A recommendation follows that the prayer of plaintiff be granted and that a divorce be entered. With this recommendation we do not agree. The marriage contract was entered into three days after defendant was sentenced upon his plea of guilty to the crimes of burglary and larceny. In our opinion plaintiff, without pleading fraud and proving it by convincing evidence, is not entitled to a decree in divorce. In other words, the mere fact of conviction of crime followed by sentence of two years or more is not ground for divorce if it occurred before the marriage.

*Order*

And now, August 15, 1952, after consideration, the prayer of the complaint in this case refused and the libel dismissed.
#### § 1.6654-4 [Reserved]
#### § 25.7101-1 Form of bonds.

For provisions relating to form of bonds, see the regulations under section 7101 contained in part 301 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration).

[T.D. 6600, 27 FR 4987, May 29, 1962]
H. Con. Res. 38 Agreed to June 28, 1995

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES ON CAPITOL

GROUNDS.

The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Association’’) shall be

permitted to sponsor a public event, soap box derby races, on

the Capitol grounds on July 15, 1995, or on such other date as

the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President

pro tempore of the Senate may jointly designate.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

The event to be carried out under this resolution shall be

free of admission charge to the public and arranged not to interfere

with the needs of Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by

the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board; except

that the Association shall assume full responsibility for all expenses

and liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

For the purposes of this resolution, the Association is authorized

to erect upon the Capitol grounds, subject to the approval of the

Architect of the Capitol, such stage, sound amplification devices,

and other related structures and equipment as may be required

for the event to be carried out under this resolution.
H. Con.Res. 38—2

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board

are authorized to make any such additional arrangements that

may be required to carry out the event under this resolution.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
#### Joseph Dunn *v.*Richard J. Finley

*William B. Hennessy,*in support of the motion.

Submitted February 11

decided February 25, 1964

Upon a consideration of the plaintiff’s motion for reargument dated February 10, 1964, it is ordered that the order dated December 3, 1963, dismissing the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County at Waterbury be, and the same hereby is, set aside. The appeal will be assigned for argument in the April, 1964, term.
----

Information procedure — Technical rules

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 313/08)

Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services. (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37; OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18).

Notifications of draft national technical rules received by the Commission

The Commission draws attention to the judgement delivered on 30 April 1996 in the ‘CIA Security’ case (C-194/94 — ECR I, p. 2201), in which the Court of Justice ruled that Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34/EC (formerly 83/189/EEC) are to be interpreted as meaning that individuals may rely on them before national courts which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with the Directive.

This judgement confirms the Commission's communication of 1 October 1986 (OJ C 245, 1.10.1986, p. 4).

Accordingly, breach of the obligation to notify renders the technical regulations concerned inapplicable, and consequently unenforceable against individuals.

For more information on the notification procedure, please write to:

Also consult the website: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/

If you require any further information on these notifications, please contact the national departments listed below:

LIST OF NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECTIVE 98/34/EC

BELGIUM

CZECH REPUBLIC

DENMARK

GERMANY

ESTONIA

GREECE

SPAIN

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALY

CYPRUS

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBURG

HUNGARY

MALTA

NETHERLANDS

AUSTRIA

POLAND

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIA

SLOVAKIA

FINLAND

SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM

EFTA — ESA

TURKEY

----

(1)  Year — registration number — Member State of origin.

(2)  Period during which the draft may not be adopted.

(3)  No standstill period since the Commission accepts the grounds of urgent adoption invoked by the notifying Member State.

(4)  No standstill period since the measure concerns technical specifications or other requirements or rules on services linked to fiscal or financial measures, pursuant to the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC.

(5)  Information procedure closed.

----