alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015016EN.01003101.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-512/11) (1)

(State aid - Aviation sector - Irish air travel tax - Exemption for transit and transfer passengers - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to open the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Procedural rights of parties concerned)

(2015/C 016/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents); and Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and E. Mc Phillips, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Regan SC)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2011) 4932 final of 13 July 2011 in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transit and transfer passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (State aid SA.29064 (2011C ex 2011/NN)).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 4932 final of 13 July 2011 in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transit and transfer passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (State aid SA.29064 (2011C ex 2011/NN)); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 4932 final of 13 July 2011 in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transit and transfer passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (State aid SA.29064 (2011C ex 2011/NN));

| 2) | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair Ltd;

| 3) | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.

---
#### § 182.700 General.

Materials used in piping systems must meet the requirements of this subpart and be otherwise acceptable to the cognizant OCMI.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta

Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 7
Federal Reserve Bank of: Chicago

## Filings received during the week ending October 15, 2005

|Filer                       | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                  | End of Comment Period                             
|--------------------------- | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|CAPITOL BANCORP LTD.        | * 3A3         | Capitol Bancorp, Ltd., Lansing, Michigan and Capitol Development Bancorp Limited I, Lansing, Michigan, to acquire 51 percent of the voting shares of Bank of Belleville (in organization), Belleville, Illinois. | Newspaper:10/16/2005Federal Register:10/13/2005   
|Newspaper:                  | 10/16/2005   
|Federal Register:           | 10/13/2005   
|PLYMOUTH BANCORP INC.       | * 3A1         | Plymouth Bancorp Inc., Kirkwood, Missouri, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Community State Bank of Plymouth, Plymouth, Illinois.                               | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:10/28/2005
|Newspaper:                  | Not available
|Federal Register:           | 10/28/2005   
|R & J FINANCIAL CORPORATION | CIC           | Notice by James Jay Johnson, Sutherland, Iowa, to gain control of R & J Financial Corporation, Inc., Elma, Iowa, and thereby indirectly Peoples Savings Bank, Charles City, Iowa.                                | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:10/31/2005
|Newspaper:                  | Not available
|Federal Register:           | 10/31/2005   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location        | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|----------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|UNIONBANK, STREATOR, ILLINOIS | 457547 | 05/09/2005 | 10/06/2005     | S         | Large Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta

Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2338 

To prohibit any alien formerly detained at the Department of Defense detention facility at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and brought 

into the United States from receiving any Federal, State, or local public 

benefit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2009 

Mr. TIAHRT (for himself, Mr. HERGER, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, and Mr. 

BURTON of Indiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit any alien formerly detained at the Department 

of Defense detention facility at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and brought into the United States 

from receiving any Federal, State, or local public benefit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Welfare for Terror5 ists Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2338 IH

1 SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS. 

2 Notwithstanding title IV of the Personal Responsi3 bility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 

4 (8 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), or any other provision of law, 

5 an alien who is detained at the Department of Defense 

6 detention facility at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

7 Cuba, on the date of the enactment of this Act, and subse8 quently is brought into the United States, is permanently 

9 ineligible for any Federal public benefit (as defined in sec10 tion 401(c) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1611(c)) and any State 

11 or local public benefit (as defined in section 411(c) of such 

12 Act (8 U.S.C. 1621(c)). 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
# Presidential Determination on Sanctions Against North Korea for Detonation of a Nuclear Explosive Device

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

In accordance with section 102(b) (1) of the Arms Export Control Act and section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act, I hereby determine that North Korea, a non-nuclear-weapon state, detonated a nuclear explosive device on October 9, 2006. The relevant agencies and instrumentalities of the United States Government are hereby directed to take the necessary actions to impose on North Korea the sanctions described in section 102(b) (2) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2799aa-1), and section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2158). 

                        You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the appropriate committees of the Congress and to arrange for its publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

[FR Doc. 07-133

Billing code 4710-10-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 160.050-2 Types and sizes.

(a) *Type.* Life buoys shall be of the annular ring type as described in this subpart, but alternate arrangements meeting the performance requirements set forth will be given special consideration.

(b) *Sizes.* Ring life buoys shall be of the sizes set forth in Table 160.050-2(b). A tolerance of a plus or minus 5 percent will be allowable on the dimensions indicated in Table 160.050-2(b).

| Size | Dimensions (inches) Finished ring |
| --- | --- |
| 30-inch | 30 |
| 24-inch | 24 |
| 20-inch | 20 |

Table 160.050-2(b)—Sizes and Dimensions of Ring Life Buoys

[CGFR 54-46, 19 FR 8707, Dec. 18, 1954, as amended by CGFR 62-17, 27 FR 9045, Sept. 11, 1962]
# C_2011340EN.01001102.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 September 2011 — HK Danmark acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen v Experian A/S

(Case C-476/11)

2011/C 340/20

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HK Danmark acting on behalf of Glennie Kristensen

Applicant:

Defendant: Experian A/S

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the exception in Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) concerning the determination of age limits for admission to occupational social security schemes be interpreted as authorisation for the Member States to be able generally to except occupational social security schemes from the prohibition in Article 2 of the directive of direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age in so far as that does not bring about discrimination on grounds of sex? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the exception in Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) concerning the determination of age limits for admission to occupational social security schemes be interpreted as authorisation for the Member States to be able generally to except occupational social security schemes from the prohibition in Article 2 of the directive of direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age in so far as that does not bring about discrimination on grounds of sex?

1

| 2. | Must the exception in Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC concerning the determination of age limits for admission to occupational social security schemes be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from maintaining a legal situation in which an employer can pay, as part of pay, age-graded pension contributions, implying for example that the employer pays a pension contribution of 6 % for employees under 35, 8 % for employees from 35 to 44 and 10 % for employees over 45, in so far as that does not bring about discrimination on grounds of sex? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the exception in Article 6(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC concerning the determination of age limits for admission to occupational social security schemes be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from maintaining a legal situation in which an employer can pay, as part of pay, age-graded pension contributions, implying for example that the employer pays a pension contribution of 6 % for employees under 35, 8 % for employees from 35 to 44 and 10 % for employees over 45, in so far as that does not bring about discrimination on grounds of sex?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2168 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2168

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend the penalty on 
    underpayments of Federal income tax for unemployed individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2009

  Mr. Duncan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend the penalty on 
    underpayments of Federal income tax for unemployed individuals.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF PENALTY ON UNDERPAYMENTS OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX 
              FOR UNEMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to imposition of accuracy-related penalty on underpayments) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Suspension of Penalty for Unemployed Individuals.--In the 
case of an individual who receives unemployment compensation (as 
defined in section 85(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) during a 
taxable year beginning in 2008 or 2009, subsection (a) shall not apply 
with respect to any underpayment of tax required to be shown on the 
return for such taxable year unless such underpayment is still 
outstanding on the date which is 2 years after the due date (including 
extensions) for filing such return.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending November 19, 2005

|Filer                                     | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                                 
|----------------------------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|BANK OF WILLIAMSBURG, THE                 | * Branch       | Bank of Williamsburg, Williamsburg, Virginia, to establish a branch facility to be located at 5030 George Washington Memorial Highway, Grafton, Virginia. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                                | Not available 
|Federal Register:                         | Not applicable
|FIDELITY & TRUST BANK                     | * Branch       | Fidelity & Trust Bank, Bethesda, Maryland, to establish a branch facility to be located at 1044 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.                     | Newspaper:12/17/2005Federal Register:Not applicable   
|Newspaper:                                | 12/17/2005    
|Federal Register:                         | Not applicable
|PLANTERS BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF VIRGINIA | * Branch       | Planters Bank & Trust Company of Virginia, Staunton, Virginia, to establish a branch facility to be located at 2201 Graves Mill Road, Forest, Virginia.   | Newspaper:12/01/2005Federal Register:Not applicable   
|Newspaper:                                | 12/01/2005    
|Federal Register:                         | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 800.116 Process for dispute resolution. ( a ) *Determinations about applicability of State law under section 1334(b)(2) of the Affordable Care Act.* In the event of a dispute about the applicability to an MSP option or MSP issuer of a State law, the State may request that OPM reconsider a determination that an MSP option or MSP issuer is not subject to such State law.
( b ) *Required demonstration.* A State making a request under paragraph (a) of this section must demonstrate that the State law at issue: ( 1 ) Is not inconsistent with section 1334 of the Affordable Care Act or this part;
( 2 ) Does not prevent the application of a requirement of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act; and
( 3 ) Does not prevent the application of a requirement of title I of the Affordable Care Act.
( c ) *Request for review.* The request must be in writing and include contact information, including the name, telephone number, email address, and mailing address of the person or persons whom OPM may contact regarding the request for review. The request must be in such form, contain such information, and be submitted in such manner and within such timeframe as OPM may prescribe. ( 1 ) The requester may submit to OPM any relevant information to support its request.
( 2 ) OPM may obtain additional information relevant to the request from any source as it may, in its judgment, deem necessary. OPM will provide the requester with a copy of any additional information it obtains and provide an opportunity for the requester to respond (including by submission of additional information or explanation).
( 3 ) OPM will issue a written decision within 60 calendar days after receiving the written request, or after the due date for a response under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, whichever is later, unless a different timeframe is agreed upon.
( 4 ) OPM's written decision will constitute final agency action that is subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act in the appropriate U.S. district court. Such review is limited to the record that was before OPM when OPM made its decision.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1889]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    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.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel Exploratory Developmental Alcohol 
Research Center Review.
    Date: May 30, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Philippe Marmillot, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on 
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 3045, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-2861, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e030f1c03070202011a1e2e030f07024000070640090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a676b7867636666657e7a4a676b636624646362246d657c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: April 11, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-1889 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 6204.

#### George Black *v.*The State.

Practice—Hew Trial.—If, after conviction, it appears that the absent testimony (to secure which the application for continuance discloses due diligence) was both material, and, in the light of the proof on the trial, probably true, a new trial should be awarded.

Appeal from the District Court of Wilson. Tried below before the Hon. George McCormick.

■ The conviction in this case was for unlawfully carrying a pistol, and the penalty assessed by the verdict was a fin© of twenty-five dollars, and. twenty days in the county jail.

A single witness testified, for the State, that he saw defendant carrying a pistol on his person on the day alleged in the indictment.

The defense introduced no evidence but disclosed its defense in the application for continuance, which was that he purchased the pistol and was taking it home at the time he was seen carrying it on his person. He proposed to prove that fact by his brother, and by the person who sold him the pistol. For diligence he showed that, on the day that he was arrested, he sued out a subpoena for the person who sold him the pistol, the said person being a resident of Wilson countyj and that on the same day he sued out an attachment to Gonzales county for his brother, who, he showed, was unable to attend because of a recently fractured arm.

*B. F.*Ballard, for the appellant.

*W. L.*Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

We think the court erred in refusing the defendant a new trial. His application for a continuance was a first one, and was in compliance with the statute both in form, and substance. It showed legal diligence to obtain the absent testimony, and the materiality of such testimony. "Viewed in connection with the evidence adduced on the trial, the absent *496testimony would be material to the defendant, as it would tend strongly to establish for him a valid defense, and there-being nothing in the testimony adduced on the trial to contradict or render it improbable, we must hold that the facts set. forth in the application for a continuance are probably true. (Code Crim. Proc., art. 560, sub div. 6; Willson’s Crim. Stat., sec. 2186.)

Opinion delivered April 27, 1889.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*