alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005217EN.01006205.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/62

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-56/97 (1)

1

(2005/C 217/126)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-56/97, W.C.G.M. Stoffelen v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.

1

---
HomeSaudi Arabia

# Saudi Arabia

369 items

        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 26, 2021Press Briefing RoomWashington, DC 
        -    Press Statement  		Accountability for the Murder of Jamal Khashoggi	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 26, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 25, 2021	  February 25, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud	  February 25, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 24, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 24, 2021Washington, D.C. 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 19, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 19, 2021Washington, D.C.  
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 17, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 17, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 12, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 12, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinkens Call with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud	  February 10, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 10, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 10, 2021 

previous page1…3132333435…37next page

Back to Top
No. 99-6841 (99A364).

#### Brown, aka Muhammed v. North Carolina.

Gen. Ct. Justice, Super. Ct. Div., Moore County, N. C. *1015Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to The Chief Justice, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
#### Barry ZETTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-1145.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 10, 1982.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 1982.

Norman O’Rourke, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

*1127Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stewart J. Bellus, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We find no reversible error and affirm. As to the appellant’s claim of error for failure of the trial court to instruct on penalties we affirm for the same reasons as those set out in our opinion issued today in the case of *Miller v. State,*410 So.2d 557 Fla. 4th DCA, opinion filed 1982. For the same reasons discussed in *Miller*we certify the following question of great public importance to the Supreme Court:

> May the harmless error rule be applied where the only penalty instruction requested is for the main offense charged and the defendant is subsequently convicted of a lesser included offense?

ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., and MINER, CHARLES E., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
# C_2005229EN.01001302.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 July 2005

in Case T-242/02, The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark TOP - Refusal of registration - Article 115(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Definition of ‘written communications’ - Infringement of the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94)

(2005/C 229/26)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case T-242/02: The Sunrider Corp., established in Torrance, California (United States), represented initially by M. Bra and subsequently by N. Dontas, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Waelbroeck and P. Geroukalos) — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2002 (Case R 314/1999-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark TOP as a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 July 2005, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

1

---
114 STAT. 1926 PUBLIC LAW 106–442—NOV. 6, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4957:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Sept. 12, considered and passed House.

Oct. 26, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–442

106th Congress

An Act

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to

extend the legislative authority for the Black Patriots Foundation to establish

a commemorative work.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section

506 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act

of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note; 110 Stat. 4155) is amended by

striking ‘‘2000’’ and inserting ‘‘2005’’.

Approved November 6, 2000.

Nov. 6, 2000

[H.R. 4957]
§ 801.401 Mandatory declarations under the pilot program. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the parties to a pilot program covered transaction shall submit to the Committee a declaration with information regarding the transaction in accordance with § 801.402.
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, parties to a pilot program covered transaction may elect to submit a written notice pursuant to subpart E of this part regarding the transaction instead of a declaration. Parties to a pilot program covered transaction that have filed with the Committee a written notice regarding a transaction pursuant to § 801.501 may not submit to the Committee a declaration regarding the same transaction or a substantially similar transaction without the approval of the Staff Chairperson.
( c ) Parties shall submit to the Committee the declaration required pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, or a written notice pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, no later than: ( 1 ) November 10, 2018, or promptly thereafter, if the completion date of the transaction is between November 10, 2018 and December 25, 2018; or
( 2 ) 45 days before the completion date of the transaction, if the completion date of the transaction is after December 25, 2018.
( d ) Section 800.204(e) of this chapter shall not apply with respect to any pilot program covered transaction for which the Committee completes all action under section 721 pursuant to § 801.407(a)(4).
40720.

#### STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. GODWIN et al.

Eberhardt, Judge.

1. Where, on the trial of a condemnation proceeding, there is no evidence that the land involved could *741be used for any purpose other than that to which it was devoted at the time of the taking, or from which the jury could infer any reasonable probability that it was suitable for any other use, it is error for the court to charge that the jury might, in estimating the value of the land, consider other purposes for which the land might be used. *Central Ga. Power Co. v. Cornwell,*139 Ga. 1 (76 SE 387, AC 1914A 880); *State Hwy. Dept. v. Weldon,*107 Ga. App. 98 (129 SE2d 396); *State Hwy. Dept. v. Allen,*108 Ga. App. 388 (133 SE2d 64); *State Hwy. Dept. v. Whitehurst,*109 Ga. App., ante.

Decided May 18, 1964.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney General, Richard L. Chambers, Paul Miller, E. J. Summerour, Assistant Attorneys General, J. Lundie Smith, Asa D. Kelley, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, S. B. McCall,*for plaintiff in error.

*Maxwell Hines, Hugh D. Wright,*contra.

2. Evidence that the land was used one year for the growing of tobacco, another for the growing of com, and another for some other crop or other agricultural use is not evidence of suitability of use for other purposes but is simply evidence of suitability for general agricultural use. Good husbandry would indicate a rotation of crops on any farm lands cleared for crop production. The record in the Supreme Court discloses that there was testimony in *Central Ga. Power Co. v. Cornwell,*139 Ga. 1, supra, that the lands being taken had been used for growing oats, corn, hay and might well be used for growing cotton.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
# C_2005173EN.01000802.xml

| 13.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3763 — Carlsberg/DLG/Sejet JV)

(2005/C 173/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 7 July 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3763. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3763. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2005205EN.01003002.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/30

---

Action brought on 15 June 2005 by Corsica Ferries France against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-231/05)

(2005/C 205/55)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 June 2005 by Corsica Ferries France, established in Bastia (France), represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaume, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Annul the Commission Decision of 16 March 2005 concerning the second tranche of restructuring aid paid by France to National Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annul the Commission Decision of 16 March 2005 concerning the second tranche of restructuring aid paid by France to National Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM);

| 2. | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against Commission Decision C(2004)4751 final of 16 March 2005 declaring payment of the second tranche of aid given by France to Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) for restructuring to be compatible, with certain conditions, with the common market (Aid No C 58/2002, ex N 118(2002)). That decision is a follow-up to the decision of 9 July 2003, which authorised subject to conditions the first tranche of the restructuring aid at issue.

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads the infringement of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and the rules adopted for its application which are relevant in this case, namely the conditions imposed by the decision of 9 July 2003 and the conditions arising from the Commission's 1997 Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (1) and the Commission's 1999 Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (2), as applicable at the time when the examination procedure for the contested aid was opened.

1

2

The applicant states in that connection that, contrary to the decision of 9 July 2003, SNCM's shares in the Compagnie Corse Meditérranée were not sold. Furthermore, SNCM continued to apply a pricing policy aiming to offer lower prices than its competitors.

Furthermore, as regards the abovementioned Community guidelines, the restructuring plan submitted by the French Republic was not fully implemented. In addition, the amount of aid was not limited to the strict minimum.

---

(1)  OJ C 205 of 5.7.1997, p. 5

1

(2)  OJ C 288 of 9.10.1999, p. 2

2

---
#### § 902.6 Consideration of tax consequences to the Government.

In negotiating a compromise, agencies should consider the tax consequences to the Government. In particular, agencies should consider requiring a waiver of tax-loss-carry-forward and tax-loss-carry-back rights of the debtor. For information on discharge of indebtedness reporting requirements see § 903.5 of this chapter.
§ 137.275 May Self-Governance Tribes include IHS construction programs in a construction project agreement or in a funding agreement? Yes, Self-Governance Tribes may choose to assume construction programs in a construction project agreement, in a funding agreement, or in a combination of the two. These programs may include the following: ( a ) Maintenance and improvement program;
( b ) Construction program functions; and
( c ) Planning services and construction management services.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 95-30871 Summary Calendar

_____________________ RUSSELL MILLS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus CHARLES C. FOTI, JR., Sheriff; LT. HOWARD; MEDICAL STAFF, Community Correctional Center; DR. ROBERTSON, Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 94-CV-4178-R

_______________________________________________________ February 22, 1996 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Russell Mills, Jr., appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Mills alleged that while he was a pretrial detainee and while he was incarcerated as an inmate, the defendants denied him adequate medical treatment. After trial before the magistrate judge, full findings were made by order dated July 6, 1995. The district judge then confirmed2

those findings by its order of August 15, 1995. It has been determined that Mills received reasonable medical treatment and that none of the defendants were indifferent to his medical needs. Mills shows no constitutional deprivation. Nor does he show how he was prejudiced by the absence of the doctor he wished to testify. AFFIRMED.
§ 800.406 Rejection, disposition, or withdrawal of declarations. ( a ) The Committee, acting through the Staff Chairperson, may: ( 1 ) Reject any declaration that does not comply with § 800.404 and so inform the parties promptly in writing;
( 2 ) Reject any declaration at any time, and so inform the parties promptly in writing, if, after the declaration has been submitted and before the Committee has taken one of the actions specified in § 800.407: ( i ) There is a material change in the covered transaction as to which a declaration has been submitted; or
( ii ) Information comes to light that contradicts material information provided in the declaration by the party (or parties); or
( 3 ) Reject any declaration at any time after the declaration has been submitted, and so inform the parties promptly in writing, if the party (or parties) that submitted the declaration does not provide follow-up information requested by the Staff Chairperson within two business days of the request, or within a longer time frame if the party (or parties) so request in writing and the Staff Chairperson grants that request in writing.
( b ) The Staff Chairperson shall notify the party (or parties) that submitted a declaration when the Committee has found that the transaction that is the subject of a declaration is not a covered transaction.
( c ) Parties to a transaction that have submitted a declaration under § 800.403 may request in writing, at any time prior to the Committee taking action under § 800.407, that such declaration be withdrawn. Such request shall be directed to the Staff Chairperson and shall state the reasons why the request is being made and state whether the transaction that is the subject of the declaration is being fully and permanently abandoned. An official of the Department of the Treasury will promptly advise the parties to the transaction in writing of the Committee's decision.
( d ) The Committee may not request or recommend that a declaration be withdrawn and refiled, except to permit parties to a covered transaction to correct material errors or omissions, or describe material changes to the transaction, in the declaration submitted with respect to that covered transaction.
( e ) A party (or parties) may not submit more than one declaration for the same or a substantially similar transaction without approval from the Staff Chairperson.
Note 1 to § 800.406 :
See § 800.403(e) regarding the prohibition on submitting a declaration regarding the same transaction or a substantially similar transaction for which a written notice has been filed without the approval of the Staff Chairperson.
# C_2005217EN.01000301.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P: ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeals - ECSC Treaty - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Alloy surcharge - Reduction of the fine - Cooperation in the administrative procedure - Attributability of the infringement - Rights of the defence)

(2005/C 217/05)

Languages of the case: German and Italian

In Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P: two appeals under Article 49 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 28 February 2002 by ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH, formerly Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH (Lawyer: M. Klusmann), and by ThyssenKrupp Acciai speciali Terni SpA, formerly Acciai speciali Terni SpA (Lawyers: A. Giardina and G. Di Tommaso), the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan, assisted by H.-J. Freund, and A. Whelan and V. Superti, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals and the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals and the cross-appeal;

| 2. | Orders ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Acciai speciali Terni SpA and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Acciai speciali Terni SpA and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109 of 04.05.2002.

1

---
§ 92.12 Definitions. ( a ) *Assessing official* means the Director of the United States Mint or his designee.
( b ) *Examining official* means an employee of the United States Mint appointed by the Director of the United States Mint (or an employee of the Treasury Department appointed by the Director of the United States Mint with the concurrence of the head of that employee's organization), to administer the procedures in this subpart in a particular case and to propose findings and recommendations in that case to the assessing official. The examining official must be: ( 1 ) An employee of the Treasury Department in the grade of GS-15 or higher; and
( 2 ) Capable of examining the matter without actual or apparent conflict of interest.
( c ) Broadcast or telecast means widespread dissemination by electronic transmission or method, whether audio and/or visual.
( d ) *Civil penalty* means a civil monetary penalty
( e ) *Date of offense* means the later of: ( 1 ) The date that the misuse occurred;
( 2 ) The date that the misuse had the effect of conveying the false impression that the activity was associated with or approved, endorsed, sponsored or authorized by the United States Mint or its officers or employees; or
( 3 ) If the violation is a continuing one, the date on which the misuse of the words, titles, abbreviations, initials, symbols, emblems, seals, or badges protected by 31 U.S.C. 333 or the procedures in this subpart last occurred.
( f ) *Days* means calendar days, unless otherwise stated.
( g ) *Person* means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, company, business, firm, manufacturer, or any other organization, entity, or institution.
( h ) *Respondent* means a person named in an Initial Notice of Assessment.
( i ) *Symbol* means any design or graphic used by the United States Mint or the Treasury Department to represent themselves or their products. A design or graphic may include ( 1 ) A trademark, designation of origin, or mark of identification, or
( 2 ) A stylized depiction comprising letters, words, or numbers.
§ 1003.420 Determinations regarding the amount of penalties and assessments. In considering the factors listed in § 1003.140, aggravating circumstances include— ( a ) Such violations were of several types or occurred over a lengthy period of time;
( b ) There were many such violations (or the nature and circumstances indicate a pattern of incidents);
( c ) The amount of money, remuneration, damages, or tainted claims involved in the violation was $15,000 or more; or
( d ) Patient harm, premature discharge, or a need for additional services or subsequent hospital admission resulted, or could have resulted, from the incident; and
( e ) The contracting organization knowingly or routinely engaged in any prohibited practice that acted as an inducement to reduce or limit medically necessary services provided with respect to a specific enrollee in the organization.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ricardo Oliva

, * From the 441st District Court

o f Midland County,

Trial Court No

. CR55426

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 2 34

- CR * December 7 , 2023

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter , J

. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.