alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011269EN.01003502.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/35

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Continental Small Company Series of the DFA Investment Trust Company v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

(Case C-345/11)

2011/C 269/71

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Continental Small Company Series of the DFA Investment Trust Company

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

| 2. | If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COLOR
STRATEGIES UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          24,587
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,562
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           402
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,562
<SALES>                                          2,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,258
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,926
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,668)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,668)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,668)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           460,516
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       2,218
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 618,787
<CASH>                                           3,750
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           2,119,897
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         111,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,991,429
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,438,305
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  93,001
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           42,746
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     261,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,991,429
<PREMIUMS>                                     315,599
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             35,539
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              16,967
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   7,959
<BENEFITS>                                     309,900
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     11,807
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            35,813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,544
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,091
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,453
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,453
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   349.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   349.06
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Katharine R. Fitzpatrick, as Administratrix of the Estate of John E. Fitzpatrick, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Buffalo Union Furnace Company, Appellant.

*Fitzpatrick v. Buffalo Union Furnace Go.,*134 App. Div. 909, affirmed.

(Argued January 13, 1910;

decided January 28, 1910.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 9,1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of defendant, his employer.

*Alfred L. Becker*for appellant.

*Ralph S. Kent*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

.Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Werner and Hiscock, JJ.
# C_2013147EN.01003301.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Dalmasso v Commission

(Case F-112/11) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff - Articles 64, 65 and 65a of the Staff Regulations - Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 - Corrective coefficients - Officials assigned to Ispra)

2013/C 147/60

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Raffaele Dalmasso (Monvalle, Italy) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the applicant’s salary slip for the month of February 2011 and the salary slips for the following months applying the new corrective coefficient for the town of Varese in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Dalmasso to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Dalmasso to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 27.

1

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 151.03-51 Tank barge.

A non-self-propelled vessel especially constructed or converted to carry bulk liquid cargo in tanks.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20642 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

D-1 MARKITTA WASHINGTON, 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING LENGTH OF RRC PLACEMENT (ECF #46) 

 On December 16, 2015, this Court sentenced Defendant Markitta Washington 

(“Washington”) to a term of imprisonment of 47 months after she pleaded guilty to 

the charges of aggravated identity theft and theft of public money. (See ECF #40 at 

Pg. ID 216-17.) On April 17, 2018, Washington filed a motion requesting that this 

Court “recommend to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) that [she] receive 5 to 6 months 

of Residential Re-entry Center (“RRC”) placement.” (See ECF #46.) 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Washington’s motion for recommendation 

regarding the length of RRC placement is DENIED. The Court believes that the 

BOP is best positioned to determine whether Washington should receive an RRC 
2

placement and for how long. Accordingly, the Court declines to make a 

recommendation to the BOP regarding a possible RRC placement for Washington. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 25, 2018 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on April 25, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
      ( print page 11893)    
*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Francisella Tularensis Pathogenesis.                    

*Date:*                         April 4, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817. (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lynn Rust, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 402-3938.                         *lr228v@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 7, 2007.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-1187 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 4, 2009 

d0122 

Order 

 

February 4, 2009 

136341 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136341 

 COA: 283758 

Kalamazoo CC: 07-000583-FH 

SCOTT RONALD GRAY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of 

People v Jackson (Docket No. 135888) is pending on appeal before this Court and that 

the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to 

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in 

that case.
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.610 Design temperature not colder than 0 °C (32 °F). Materials for cargo tanks for a design temperature not colder than 0 °C (32 °F) must meet the following: ( a ) The tank materials must meet §§ 54.25-1 and 54.25-3 of this chapter.
( b ) Plates, forgings, rolled and forged bars and shapes must be carbon manganese steel or other material allowed under §§ 154.615, 154.620, and 154.625.
( c ) Plates must be normalized or quenched and tempered and where the thickness exceeds 20 mm (0.787 in.), made with fine grain practice, austenitic grain size of five or finer. A control rolling procedure may be substituted for normalizing if specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG). Plate for an independent tank type C must also meet the requirements of ASTM A 20 (incorporated by reference, see § 154.1) and § 54.01-18(b)(5) of this chapter.
( d ) For integral and independent type A tanks, the American Bureau of Shipping's grade D not exceeding 20 mm (0.787 in.) in thickness, and Grade E hull structural steel are allowed if the steel meets § 54.05-10 of this chapter.
( e ) The tensile properties under paragraph (a) of this section must be determined for: ( 1 ) Each plate as rolled; and
( 2 ) Each five short ton batch of forgings, forged or rolled fittings, and forged or rolled bars and shapes.
( f ) The specified yield strength must not exceed 637 MPa (92.43 Ksi) and when it exceeds 490 MPa (71.10 Ksi), the hardness of the weld and the heat affected zone must be specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG).
( g ) The Charpy V-notch impact energy must be determined for: ( 1 ) Each plate as rolled; and
( 2 ) Each five short ton batch of forgings, forged or rolled fittings and rolled or forged bars and shapes.
( h ) The orientation and required impact energy of a 10 mm × 10 mm (0.394 in. × 0.394 in.) Charpy V-notch specimen must be: ( 1 ) For plates; transverse specimen and 27.4 J (20 ft-lbs); and
( 2 ) For forgings, forged and rolled fittings and rolled and forged bars: longitudinal specimen and 41.1 J (30 ft-lbs).
( i ) The test temperature of the Charpy V-notch specimens is as follows:
Material Thickness
Test Temperature t≤20 mm (0.788 in.)
0 °C (32 °F) 20<t<30 mm (1.182 in.)
−20 °C (−4 °F) 30<t<40 mm (1.576 in.)
−40 °C (−40 °F)
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983; USCG-1999-5151, 64 FR 67183, Dec. 1, 1999]
#### Matthew M. Goggin et al., Respondents, *v.*Manhattan Railway Company et al., Appellants.

*Goggin*v. *Manhattan Bailwcuy Go.,*134 App. Div. 644, reversed.

(Argued June 8, 1909;

decided October 5,1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 23, 1908, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at Special Term and granting a new trial in an action to restrain the operation and maintenance of an elevated railway in front of certain premises and for damages.

*J. Osgood Nichols*and *Alfred A. Qard/ner*for appellants.

*Charles H. Strong*for respondents.

Order of Appellate Division reversed and judgment of Special Term affirmed, with costs in both courts, on dissenting opinion of Houghton, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch.' J., Gray, Haigi-it, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ. Dissenting: Edward T. Bartlett, J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**THOMAS AMATO AND JEAN AMATO,**

**HIS WIFE**

**v.**

**BELL & GOSSETT, CLARK-RELIANCE CORP., COPES-VULCAN, INC., CRANE**  **CO., DEZURIK/COPES-VULCAN, ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,**  **GOODYEAR CANADA, INC.,GREENE,TWEED & COMPANY,** 

**INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS CORP. F/K/A CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, INC.,J.A.**  **SEXAUER, INC., JOHN CRANE, INC., LINCOLN ELECTRIC CO., NIBCO, INC,** **PARKER-HANNIFIN COP., SAINT GOBAIN ABRASIVES, INC., SEPCO**  **CORP., SPX CORP., VELAN VALVECORP., WILLIAM POWELL**  **COMPANY, INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY,TRANE US, INC.,** 

**INDIVIDUALLY AND F/K/A AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., SUCCESSOR TO THE**  **TRANE CO., AMERICAN RADIATOR & STANDARDSANITARY CORP.,**  **KEWANEE BOILER, CO., AND/OR**

**KEWANEE BOILER DIV. OF AMERICAN STANDARD, UNION CARBIDE CORP.**  **AND WARREN PUMPS, LLC**

**PETITION OF: CRANE CO. :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 448 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM**[448 EAL 2015] - 2**

AND NOW **, this 1st day of February, 2016, the Petition for Al lowance of Appeal** 

**is** GRANTED

**,** LIMITED TO **the issue set forth below. Allocatur is** DENIED **as to all**

**remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:**

**Whether, under the Court’s recent decision in** Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.

**, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), a defendant in a strict-liab**  **ility claim based on a failure-to-warn theory has the right to have a jury**  **determine whether its product was “unreasonably dangerous[?]”** 

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideratio n or decision of this matter.**
#### JOHN A. BENVENUTE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CLIFFORD I. VOORHEES, EXECUTOR OF AND UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ABRAM COLLIER, DECEASED, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted May 8, 1929

Decided June 21, 1929.

*581Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodixe.

For the defendant-appellant, *Clifford I: Voorhees.*

For the plaintiff-appellee, *Freeman Woodbridge.*

Per Curiam.

This is a suit against an executor. The proofs in the District Court showed that someone had seen the plaintiff loan to the defendant’s testator money which he told others he had borrowed. The plaintiff testified that the money had not been repaid, and was still due and payable.

The proofs further consisted of letters from the testator, in which he admitted that he owed the plaintiff money which would be repaid. These letters were necessary to take the case out of the six-year period of limitation.

It seems to us that the action of the trial judge in giving judgment for the plaintiff did not offend either the Evidence act or the statute of limitations.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### § 81.3 Use of gender and number.

As used in this part, words importing the singular number may extend and be applied to several persons or things, and vice versa. Words importing the masculine gender may be applied to females or organizations.
# C_2011269EN.01003001.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/30

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 29 June 2011 — J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-326/11)

2011/C 269/57

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: J.J. Komen en Zonen Beheer Heerhugowaard B.V.

Appellant:

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 13B(g), in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a), of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the supply of a building in respect of which, prior to its supply, the vendor had transformation work carried out with a view to the creation of a new building (refurbishment), work which was continued and completed by the purchaser after its supply, is not exempt from VAT?

1

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---