alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006036EN.01000902.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 6 December 2005

in Case C-66/04: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (1)

1

(Foods - Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 - Smoke flavourings - Choice of legal basis)

(2006/C 36/16)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-66/04: Action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 11 February 2004, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: R. Caudwell and M. Bethell, assisted by Lord Goldsmith QC, N. Paines QC and T. Ward, Barrister) v European Parliament (Agents: K. Bradley and M. Moore), Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims, E. Karlsson and F. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J.-P. Keppenne, N. Yerrell and M. Shotter) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and K. Schiemann, Presidents of Chambers, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, A. Borg Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 December 2005, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94 of 17. 04. 2004.

1

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joey SAVOIE.

No. 62200.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1978.

Harold J. Sonnier, Tauzin & Sonnier, Thi-bodaux, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Francis Dugas, Dist. Atty., John J. Erny, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Joey Savoie was charged by bill of information with simple burglary in violation of La. R.S. 14:62. On March 13, 1978, the defendant pled guilty as charged. Subsequently, he was sentenced to serve six years at hard labor in the custody of the Department of Corrections. He now appeals to this Court, assigning as error the trial court’s imposition of the six year sentence.

Article 894.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth both grounds for imposition of sentence and factors which should be accorded weight in the trial court’s determination of suspension of sentence or probation. Additionally, the article states that the “court shall state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence.” The record in this case, including the transcription of sentencing, does not reflect that the trial court complied with this mandate to particularize the sentence to this defendant. *See State v. Jackson,*360 So.2d 842 (La.1978); *State v. Scarborough,*359 So.2d 982 (La.1978); *State v. Sepulvado,*359 So.2d 137 (La.1978).

Accordingly, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand the ease to the trial court with instructions to resentence defendant in accordance with law.
REVISED 10/11/2000

PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY RULEMAKING PROCESS

FOR DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

The Department of Energy (Department) is convening a public workshop to discuss and receive

comments on issues it will address and the process it will follow in considering the adoption of

energy conservation standards for electric distribution transformers . The Department has prepared

a Framework Document to explain and discuss the process, analyses and issues concerning the

development of such standards. For many of the issues and analyses, the Framework Document

sets forth approaches that the Department is considering.

The workshop will be held on Wednesday , November 1, 2000 from 9:00 a.m. until 5 : 00 p.m. in

Room I E-245 at the U. S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue , SW, Washington,

D.C. 20585 . Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance

security screening procedures. If you are a foreign national and wish to participate in the

workshop, please inform DOE of this fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms.Geraldine Paige at

(202)586-9130 so that the necessary procedures can be completed . The agenda is enclosed and a

copy of the Federal Register Notice and Framework Document is located at

"http ://www.eren. doe.gov/buildings/codes standards/applbrf/dist transformer . html".

If you plan to attend the workshop , have any questions, or wish to obtain additional background

materials, please contact Ms. Geraldine Paige by telephone at 202 -586-9130, or by telefax at 202-

586-4617. 1 look forward to seeing you at the workshop.

Sincerely,

Edward O. Pollock, Jr., Director

Office ofBuilding Research and Standards

Office of Building Technology, State and

Community Programs

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 01A
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Esau PERNELL, Appellee.

No. 80-417.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 15, 1980.

Michael J. Satz, State’s Atty., and Patti Englander, Asst. State’s Atty., Fort Laud-erdale, for appellant.

Robert C. Stone of Stone & Dell, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves an application of the speedy trial rule. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191. From May 10, 1978, when appellee was charged with delivery of cocaine through March 26,1979, the appellee was granted no less than five requests for continuance. On May 14, 1979 the appellant, State of Florida, was granted a continuance because its chemist was not available for trial. On August 24, 1979 the original trial judge recused himself and the matter was set for trial before a successor judge. The appel-lee’s motion for discharge was heard on September 10, 1979 and granted on February 26, 1980. Speedy trial time was tolled by order of the court on August 24, 1979 and the appellee specifically waived speedy trial in each of his motions for continuance. The State now appeals the order granting the discharge and we reverse.

The trial court relied on *Negron v. State,*306 So.2d 104 (Fla.1974) and *State v. Reese,*359 So.2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) in granting the discharge, and correctly so at that time. Each of those cases has been overruled. See, *Butterworth v. Fluellen,*389 So.2d 968 (Fla.1980); *State v. Van Johnson,*386 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Accordingly, the order granting the appellee’s discharge is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

MOORE, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Verma’s Meeting with Comorian President Azali

# 									Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Verma’s Meeting with Comorian President Azali							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

May 31, 2023

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:

Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Richard Verma met in Moroni, Comoros, with Comorian President Azali Assoumani.  Deputy Secretary Verma congratulated President Assoumani on his selection as Chair of the African Union.  They discussed the growing bilateral relationship between Comoros and the United States, including ways the United States can partner to create a stronger and more prosperous Comoros, based on our mutual respect for democratic governance and commitment to uphold the rules-based international order.  The leaders also spoke about opportunities for the United States and Comoros to facilitate regional integration and cooperation to address shared challenges.

Tags

African UnionBureau of African AffairsComorosDeputy Secretary of State for Management and ResourcesOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 321

To deem the Florida Panther to be an endangered species under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. MCCOLLUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To deem the Florida Panther to be an endangered species

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

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

3 SECTION 1. FLORIDA PANTHER DECLARED ENDANGERED

4 SPECIES.

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the spe6 cies commonly known as the ‘‘Florida Panther’’ is deemed

7 to be an endangered species for purposes of the Endan8 gered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531).
2

HR 321 IH

1 SEC. 2. LISTING OF FLORIDA PANTHER.

2 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec3 retary of the Interior shall include the species known as

4 the ‘‘Florida Panther’’ in the list published under section

5 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.

6 1533(d)).

Æ
#### CLARENCE W. TURNER v. THE UNITED STATES AND CREEK NATION OF INDIANS.

[51 C. Cls., 125; 248 U. S., 354.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of defendants in the-court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:

*189While recognized by the v,. -ted States as a distinct political community, the Creek Nation leased a pasture, the lessees undertaking to fence and pay rent. When nearly completed, the fence was destroyed by the action of a Creek mob, participated in by the Creek treasurer; and thereafter one of the lessees, assignee of the rest, sued the Creek Nation for the cost of the fence and of the assignments, and for the loss of the benefits of the lease: *Held,*That there was no cause of action; for a sovereignty, on general principles, is not liable for injuries resulting from mob violence or failure to keep the peace; and neither the wrong of the treasurer nor any duty under the lease created such liability here.

The special act of May 29, 1908, chapter 216, 85 Statutes, 444, 457, authorized suit in the Court of Claims against the Creek Nation for the adjudication of this claim, but it did not validate the claim itself or permit that the United States be joined as a defendant.

Mr. Justice Brandeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 7, 1919.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Maurice GIBBS v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 64886.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Maurice Gibbs, applying for reconsideration. Parish of Orleans. No. 255-403.

Not considered. La.Sup.Ct. Rule 9, Section 6.

DENNIS, J., would transfer to the district court for a hearing.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04856

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 04856\04856_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04856\04856_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04856\04856_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04856\Certification Statement Plant ID_04856.pdf Plant certification statement

x 04856\Supporting Documentation\Attchements for Part A Section 5\04856_MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04856\Supporting Documentation\Attchements for Part A Section 5\04856_WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04856\Supporting Documentation\Attchements for Part A Section 5\04856_WB-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04856\Supporting Documentation\Attchements for Part A Section 5\04856_WB-4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04856\Supporting Documentation\Attchements for Part A Section 5\WB-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04856\04856_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04856\04856_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### William C. Moquin et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Annie R. Bennett, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term,

June, 1898.)

Principal and agent — Power of attorney to husband to make notes in wife’s business.

A husband, who has a written power of attorney to make notes for his wife in her business as a coffee merchant, has no authority to make a note, on its face purporting to be made by him as her attorney, to pay his own debt to a third person and a subsequent transferee for value from the third person, who takes the note with notice that it was made without consideration or authority as to the wife, cannot enforce it against her.

Action on a promissory note.

Charles S. Simpkins, for plaintiffs.

Joseph L. Keane, for defendant.

Gaynor J.

Either Mr. Wells or Ms wife Fannie E. Wells owed the plaintiffs a bill for coals. Mr. Wells presented to them the note in smt in payment, and it was accepted. The note being $140 in excess of the bill, the plaintiffs paid that sum to Mr. Wells in cash. The note is to the order of the said Fannie E. Wells, and purports on its face to have been made by “A. B. Bennett, per J. P. Bennett, atty.” J. P. Bennett is the husband of A. B. Bennett (the defendant), and at the time the note was made he was carrying on her business of coffee merchant, and held her written power of attorney to do all acts for her in the said business, including the mailing of bills and notes. I feel constrained to find that when the plaintiffs received the note, they were mformed that it was given by Mr. Bennett in payment of an indebtedness not of his wife but of Mmself to Mr. Wells. The plaintiff who testified says that on occasions when he demanded payment of Wells of his indebtedness to the plaintiffs, Wells said that Mr. Bennett owed him a great deal of money, and was going, to pay in installments; and then he adds that in that way the note was made, or as he says, *“*paid He makes no claim that tMs latter was information *158he acquired after he had received the note, but states it as something he knew when he received the note. This shows that the plaintiffs did not receive the note in good faith, viz., without notice or knowledge that it was made without consideration or authority, but the contrary, for J. P. Bennett, as the agent of his wife, ■ had no authority to make a note for her to pay his own debt, any more than a partner, who is in law only agent for his firm, could make a firm note to pay his individual debt. It was proved in behalf of the defendant that she was not indebted to Hr. or Mrs. Wells, and-that the note was given without any consideration, and without her authority. This put upon the plaintiffs the burden of showing that they took the note from Wells without knowledge or notice of such lack of authority (Daniel, sec. 369; Bank v. Gilliland, 23 Wend. 311; Exchange Bank v. Monteath, 26 N. Y. 505; Bank of Vergennes v. Cameron, *7*Barb. 143; Wilson v. Met. El. Railroad Co., 120 N. Y. 145). This burden was not met.

Judgment for defendant.
BONUS ARRANGEMENTS

The following bonus arrangements have been made for the named officers with
respect to profits of the Company for fiscal year 1997:

                         Regular Bonus            Super Bonus(1)

     Mr. Adler           $30,000                  N/A
                         plus 7%
                         of any excess

     Mr. Montano         $25,000                  N/A
                         plus 5%
                         of any excess

     Mr. Mason           $20,000                  N/A
                         plus 4%
                         of any excess

     Ms. Drury           5% of salary             10% of salary

     Mr. Lefeld          5% of salary             10% of salary

     Mr. Galastro        $5,000 plus              $7,500 plus
                         3% of excess             4% of excess
                         over budgeted            over budgeted
                         profit for his           profit for his
                         department               department

     Mr. Swartz          $7,500 plus              $11,000 plus
                         3% of excess             4% of excess
                         over budgeted            over budgeted
                         profit for his           profit for his
                         department and           department and
                         1% of dollars            2% of excess
                         over budgeted            over budgeted
                         profit for wholesale     profit for wholesale
                         department               department


(1)  The `regular bonus'' and the ``super bonus'' are based on target levels for
corporate profits, which vary by position.  If corporate profits reach the
`regular bonus'' level, the named officer will get the ``regular bonus''
indicated.  If corporate profits reach the `super bonus'' level, the named
officer will get only the `super bonus'' indicated, not both the "regular bonus"
and the "super bonus".
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2969 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2969

To eliminate the Board of Tea Experts by repealing the Tea Importation 
                              Act of 1897.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1996

Mr. Klug (for himself and Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 
   and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, 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 eliminate the Board of Tea Experts by repealing the Tea Importation 
                              Act of 1897.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Tea Tasters Repeal Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF TEA IMPORTATION ACT OF 1897.

    The Tea Importation Act (21 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is repealed.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ross’s Estate.

A lien-creditor is not excluded from a fund, by reason of neglecting to present it to the auditor before the report is filed; if application be made before final decree.

Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Wyoming.

*July*11.

The administrators of Ross having sold certain real estate, the distribution of the proceeds was referred to an auditor, who made a report. This was sent back, and pending the second reference, a claim was made on a judgment and mortgage against Ross, which had not been presented to the auditor, and were entered in Luzerne. The auditor rejected them, but the court admitted the claim — this was the error assigned.

*Wright,*for appellant.

*Fuller,*contrd.

Per Curiam.

It is not disputed that the mortgage and judgment of Slocum was the first lien on the fund; but it is contended that it lost its priority by having been presented too late. It is never too late, however, to do justice by correcting a defect before final judgment and decree; and even afterwards, the proceeding may be unravelled at the discretion of the court. A mere slip, *18which may be retrieved, must not be allowed to work a forfeiture of right.

Decree affirmed.
#### STATE of Alabama ex rel. Pat SPEER v. Donald David HAYNES.

No. Civ. 1892.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 22, 1980.

Upon Remand from the Supreme Court.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

Whereas on August 8, 1980, the Supreme Court of Alabama, 392 So.2d 1187, entered judgment upon writ of certiorari reversing the judgment of this court, 392 So.2d 1183, entered on October 31, 1979;

Upon remand, it is therefore considered by this court that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, from which the appeal was originally taken to this court, is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
#### Willie LANIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 23, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[114th Congress Public Law 177]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 431]]

Public Law 114-177
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 615 6th Avenue SE in Cedar Rapids, Iowa as the ``Sgt. 1st Class Terryl 
    L. Pasker Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: June 13, 2016 -  [H.R. 
                                4605]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SGT. 1ST CLASS TERRYL L. PASKER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 615 6th Avenue SE in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Sgt. 1st Class Terryl L. Pasker Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sgt. 1st 
Class Terryl L. Pasker Post Office Building''.

    Approved June 13, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4605:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            Apr. 18, considered and passed House.
            May 26, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Eugenio Herberto ROJAS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 46022.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 16, 1975.

Certiorari denied. 296 So.2d 627.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, Mc-CAIN and OVERTON, JJ„ concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 1

Distribution of Core Steel Grade

By % Reduction in Loss to Current DOE 

Standard

Wes Patterson, DOE Negotiating Committee, 13 Oct 2011
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 2

MVA shipped by Grade by % Loss Reduction 

Networks and Substations

1 50% of this volume 

is Networks

2 To meet the current 

standard requires 

the use of the 

highest grade of 

steel applicable to 

this product

3 Increasing the 

standard for 

Networks will be 

very challenging

4 ---
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 3

MVA shipped by Grade by % Loss Reduction 

MV Dry Type

1 To meet the current 

standard requires 

M4 and H0

2 Any improvement in 

the standard will 

drive consumption 

to H0 / H1

3 SA is not practical 

in these products

4 ---
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 4

MVA shipped by Grade by % Loss Reduction 

Poles

1 SA is not used by 

PPI for production

2 As the efficiency 

improves the grade 

of steel shifts from 

M3 to M2

3 The impact of SA 

can be somewhat 

ascertained from 

the Pad data

4 The large reduction 

in 3ph were very 

small volumes (< 

2000 kVA) and 

should be ignored
© ABB

Month DD, YYYY | Slide 5

MVA shipped by Grade by % Loss Reduction 

Pads

1 As the efficiency 

increases the 

grades move from 

M3 to M2 to SA

2 For pads as 

reduction in losses 

of up to 20-30% can 

be achieved with all 

grades. Beyond 

30% only SA can be 

used

3 At 30-40% 

reduction in losses 

virtually on SA can 

be used

4 ---