alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012126EN.01000202.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2012 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-596/10) (1)

1

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Value Added Tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Application of reduced VAT rates to transactions concerning equidae and in particular to horses)

2012/C 126/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and M. Alfonso, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, J.-S. Pilczer and B. Beaupère-Manokha, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, agent and N. Travers and G. Clohessy, barristers)

Intervener:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 96 to 99 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Application of a reduced rate of VAT to equidae and in particular to horses

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by applying reduced rates of VAT to transactions relating to equidae and, in particular, to horses, where they are not as a matter of course intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs or in agricultural production, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by applying reduced rates of VAT to transactions relating to equidae and, in particular, to horses, where they are not as a matter of course intended for use in the preparation of foodstuffs or in agricultural production, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Annex III thereto;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

1

---
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 0197 V

UNPUBLISHED

ERNESTINE HARRIS

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: July 2, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria
acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA)

Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY , for petitioner.

Claudia Barnes Gangi

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On February 4, 2019

, Ernestine Harris filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that s he suffered a shoulder injury r elated to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as a result of a tetanus

- di phtheria

- acellular pertussis ( “ Tdap ”

v accin ation administered on September 28, 2017 . Petit ion at 1,5 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 30, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Managemen t and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 19 86, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).2

at 1. Specifically, R espondent concludes that Petit ioner suffered a Table injury and

states that “ [n]o other causes for [P]etitioner ’ s SIRVA were identified. ” Id. at 6

. Respondent further agrees that the statutory six month sequela requirement has been

satisfied

. Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
§ 207.5 Related agreements considered a single agreement. The following rules must be applied in determining whether an agreement is a covered agreement under § 207.2. ( a ) *Agreements entered into by same parties.* All written agreements to which an insured depository institution or an affiliate of the insured depository institution is a party shall be considered to be a single agreement if the agreements— ( 1 ) Are entered into with the same NGEP;
( 2 ) Were entered into within the same 12-month period; and
( 3 ) Are each in fulfillment of the CRA.
( b ) *Substantively related contracts.* All written contracts to which an insured depository institution or an affiliate of the insured depository institution is a party shall be considered to be a single agreement, without regard to whether the other parties to the contracts are the same or whether each such contract is in fulfillment of the CRA, if the contracts were negotiated in a coordinated fashion and a NGEP is a party to each contract.
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for

the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category

DATABASE REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598

DCN: SGE01184.A17

Attachment file will be sent on CD

.
§ 1808.202 Eligible CDFIs. Each Eligible CDFI applicant seeking a Bond Loan must meet the following criteria: ( a ) Be certified by the CDFI Fund as meeting the eligibility requirements set forth in 12 CFR 1805.201;
( b ) Have the appropriate expertise, capacity, and experience, or otherwise be qualified to use the proceeds of Bond Loans for Eligible Purposes; and
( c ) Meet such other criteria and requirements set forth in the applicable Notice of Guarantee Availability, the Guarantee Application, the Bond Loan Requirements, related Bond and Bond Loan documents, and such other requirements of the CDFI Fund.
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4403 Subsequent use. An eligible individual may receive up to six grants of assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 21, subject to the following limitations: ( a ) The aggregate amount of assistance available to an eligible individual for 2101(a) grant and TRA grant usage will be limited to the aggregate amount of assistance available for 2101(a) grants;
( b ) The aggregate amount of assistance available to an eligible individual for 2101(b) grant and TRA grant usage will be limited to the aggregate amount of assistance available for 2101(b) grants;
( c ) The TRA grant may only be obtained once and will be counted as one of the six grant usages; and
( d ) Funds from subsequent 2101(a) grant or 2101(b) grant usages may only pay for reimbursing specially adapted housing-related costs incurred on or after June 15, 2006 or the date on which the eligible individual is conditionally approved for subsequent assistance, whichever is later.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection provisions in this section under control number 2900-0132) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2102, 2102A)
[75 FR 56876, Sept. 17, 2010, as amended at 86 FR 56216, Oct. 8, 2021]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED 6/30/97 AND THE YEAR ENDED 12/31/97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,984
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,000
<INVENTORY>                                    458,566
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               628,466
<PP&E>                                         332,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,079,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,077,843
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,913,693
<OTHER-SE>                                (12,912,045)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,079,491
<SALES>                                        543,713
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               543,713
<CGS>                                          299,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  299,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,315,208
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (993)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,030,459)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,030,459)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,030,459)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)
        

</TABLE>
#### MISSOURI PACIFIC R. R. CO. v. UNITED STATES

[59 C. Cls. 524; 60 *id.*183; 271 U. S. 603]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*the Supreme Court deciding:

1. The act of July 28, 1916, authorized the Interstate Commerce Commission to determine on a space basis the compensation to be paid railroads for transportation of mails in railway post-office cars and for the service connected therewith, and to allow land-grant roads only 80% of this compensation although part of the space in such cars by which such compensation is gauged is not occupied for mail matter but is used for the distribution of mail on the trains.

2. The obligation of land-grant railroads, as expressed in granting acts passed in 1S52 and 1853, to transport the mails at all times “under the direction of the Post Office Department, at such price as Congress may direct,” looked to the future and includes the furnishing of space in railway post-office cars for distribution purposes as required in this case by the department pursuant to the act of July 28, 1916.

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court June 7, 1926.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ALISON TORRES, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3163

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 28, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; Margaret O. Steinbeck, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and CRENSHAW and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/31 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.03 N 77.49 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■
■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
March 14, 2000

       Securities and Exchange Commission
       450 Fifth Street, N.W.
       Washington, D.C. 20549

            Re:     Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.
                    Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending January 31, 2000
                    SEC file no.  0-17378

       Dear Sir or Madam:

       Transmitted herewith through the EDGAR system is Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended January 31, 2000 for Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.  Should you have
any questions or comments concerning this matter please contact the
undersigned at 303-794-2000.



       Sincerely,



       Roger Hurst
       President


<PAGE>
#### § 161.37 Parent company; subsidiary.

The term *subsidiary* means any company which is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by a person, and includes any service corporation owned in whole or in part by a savings association, or a subsidiary of such service corporation.

[76 FR 49043, Aug. 9, 2011, as amended at 85 FR 42643, July 14, 2020]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0683

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LYNDSEY LALICKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 29, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 23 2020

03/23/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0683
# C_2005040EN.01002001.xml

| 17.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/20

---

43th amendment of the State aid guidelines

th

EFTA Surveillance Authority decision to propose appropriate measures

(2005/C 40/13)

Date of adoption:

EFTA State: n.a.

Case No: 47655

Title: Amendments of the Authority's Guidelines Chapter 26A on ‘Multisectoral Framework on regional aid for large investment projects’ and proposal for appropriate measures.

Legal basis: College Decision No 40/04

Decision: The appropriate measures, proposed by the Authority and accepted by the EFTA States are as follows:

---
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Riviera Holdings Corporation

                 RIVIERA HOLDINGS CORPORATION
                   Organizational Structure

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     RIVIERA HOLDINGS CORPORATION
                         a Nevada corporation
                                  |
                                  |
                    Riviera Operating Corporation
                         a Nevada Corporation
                                  |
                                  |
                  -------------------------------------- --------
                  |                                             |
                  |                                             |
    Riviera Gaming Management, Inc.                 Riviera Black Hawk, Inc.
     ------  a Nevada corporation  ------------      a Colorado corporation
     |            |                           |
     |            |                           |
     |  Riviera Gaming Management of          |
     |  Missouri, Inc. a Missouri             |
     |  corporation                           |
     |                                        |
     |                               Riviera Gaming Management of
     |                               Colorado, Inc. a Colorado
     |                               corporation
Riviera Gaming Management of
New Mexico, Inc. a New Mexico
corporation
From: Susan Miller [mailto:SMiller@bia.org]

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 8:32 AM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Cc: Barnett, Keith; terry.schimmel@boral.com

Subject: RE: more information needed on kiln test reports for uncontrolled kilns

Still checking on that one.

Susan Miller

919 380-2191

smiller@bia.org

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, you may learn 

something new. 

-Dalai Lama

From: Nizich, Sharon [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:19 AM

To: Susan Miller

Cc: Barnett, Keith; terry.schimmel@boral.com

Subject: RE: more information needed on kiln test reports for uncontrolled kilns

Thanks for the info. Also do you have info on the Lee Brick emission test in Sanford NC, 

(695)? Thanks!

Sharon Nizich

US EPA

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division/SPPD

RTP NC 27711

(919) 541 2825

From: Susan Miller [mailto:SMiller@bia.org]

Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:15 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Cc: Barnett, Keith; terry.schimmel@boral.com

Subject: RE: more information needed on kiln test reports for uncontrolled kilns
Looking at the next lowest uncontrolled PM emitters on your list- Bowerston Shale is a true area 

source. Officially, they have a limit on throughput to demonstrate in their permit that they are not 

major, but the limit is above their physical capacity, so they could never operate above this 

limit. Not sure why the permitters went that approach, but it is a “true area source” for HAP. It, too, 

should not be on the list.

Susan Miller

919 380-2191

smiller@bia.org

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, you may learn 

something new. 

-Dalai Lama
Personal communication with J. Bartine, July 2009 .

USDA NRCS Florida State Office Pay ment amounts for installation of best management practices (BMPs) through Florida’s Environmental Quality

I ncentive Program (EQIP, as described in FL EQI P, 2009a) are rep resentative of statewide average costs of implementation.
#### § 1808.626 Limitation on liability.

The liability of the Federal Government arising out of any fees or funds obtained by a CDFI Bond Guarantee Program participant in accordance with this interim rule shall be limited to the amount of the fees or funds obtained by the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program participant. The Federal Government shall be exempt from any assessments and other liabilities that may be imposed on controlling or principal shareholders by any Federal law or the law of any State. Nothing in this section shall affect the application of any Federal tax law.
# C_2010320EN.01001801.xml

| 25.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/18

---

Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1 j of Annex XV of the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))

2010/C 320/07

PART I

| Aid No | GBER 7/10/R&D |
| --- | --- |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Granting authority | Finnmark fylkeskommune |
| Henry Karlsens plass 1 |
| 9815 Vadsø |
| NORWAY |
| http://www.ffk.no |

Aid No

GBER 7/10/R&D

EFTA State

Norway

Granting authority

Finnmark fylkeskommune

Henry Karlsens plass 1

9815 Vadsø

NORWAY

http://www.ffk.no

Title of the aid measure

Development aid 2010 for Hermetikken Næringshage AS

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Decision from Finnmark County Council

Ad hoc aid

X

| Hermetikken Næringshage AS |
| --- |
| 9800 Vadsø |
| NORWAY |

Hermetikken Næringshage AS

9800 Vadsø

NORWAY

Date of granting

Ad hoc aid

17.6.2010

Economic sector(s) concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

X

Type of beneficiary

SME

X

Overall amount of the ad hoc aid awarded to the undertaking

NOK 0,20 (in millions)

Aid instrument (Article 5)

Grant

X

PART II

| General Objectives (list) | Objectives (list) | Maximum aid intensity in % or Maximum aid amount in NOK | SME-bonuses in % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Aid for research, development and innovation (Articles 30-37) | Aid for research and development projects (Article 31) | Fundamental research (Article 31(2)(a)) | ... % | |
| Industrial research (Article 31(2)(b)) | ... % | |
| Experimental development (Article 31(2)(c)) | 3,96 % | |

General Objectives (list)

Objectives (list)

Maximum aid intensity in % or Maximum aid amount in NOK

SME-bonuses in %

Aid for research, development and innovation (Articles 30-37)

Aid for research and development projects (Article 31)

Fundamental research (Article 31(2)(a))

... %

Industrial research (Article 31(2)(b))

... %

Experimental development (Article 31(2)(c))

3,96 %

---
§ 19.33 Public hearings. ( a ) *General rule.* All hearings must be open to the public, unless the Comptroller in their discretion, determines that holding an open hearing would be contrary to the public interest. Within 20 days of service of the notice or, in the case of change-in-control proceedings under section 7(j)(4) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(4)), within 20 days from service of the hearing order, any respondent may file with the Comptroller a request for a private hearing, and any party may file a reply to such a request. A party must serve on the ALJ a copy of any request or reply the party files with the Comptroller. The form of, and procedure for, these requests and replies are governed by § 19.23. A party's failure to file a request or a reply constitutes a waiver of any objections regarding whether the hearing will be public or private.
( b ) *Filing document under seal.* Enforcement Counsel, in Enforcement Counsel's discretion, may file any document or part of a document under seal if disclosure of the document would be contrary to the public interest. The ALJ will take all appropriate steps to preserve the confidentiality of such documents or parts thereof, including closing portions of the hearing to the public.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2656

To amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give the Secretary of 

the Interior discretion regarding taking land into trust. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2003

Ms. WOOLSEY (for herself and Mr. THOMPSON of California) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL

To amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give 

the Secretary of the Interior discretion regarding taking 

land into trust.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO GIVE SECRETARY AND STATE 

4 DISCRETION CONCERNING TRUST LANDS. 

5 (a) REVIEW.—Section 1404 of the Graton Rancheria 

6 Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 1300n–2) is amended by add7 ing at the end the following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(f) REVIEW.—No land taken into trust for the ben9 efit of the Tribe shall be construed to satisfy the terms 

10 for an exception under section 20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian 
2

•HR 2656 IH 

1 Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)) to the 

2 prohibition on gaming on lands acquired by the Secretary 

3 in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe after October 

4 17, 1988, under section 20(a) of such Act (25 U.S.C. 

5 2719(a)).’’. 

6 (b) LAND INTO TRUST.—Section 1405(a) of the 

7 Graton Rancheria Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 1300n8 3(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘may’’.

Æ