alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013171EN.01002603.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2013 — Alumina v Council

(Case T-304/11) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Normal value - Representativeness of domestic sales - Profit margin - Ordinary course of trade)

2013/C 171/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alumina d.o.o. (Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, lawyers)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OJ 2011 L 125, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in so far as it concerns Alumina d.o.o.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in so far as it concerns Alumina d.o.o.;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alumina; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alumina;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1858 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1858

  To provide for a boundary adjustment and land conveyances involving 
   Roosevelt National Forest, Colorado, to correct the effects of an 
  erroneous land survey that resulted in approximately 7 acres of the 
Crystal Lakes Subdivision, Ninth Filing, encroaching on National Forest 
                  System land, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2009

    Ms. Markey of Colorado introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a boundary adjustment and land conveyances involving 
   Roosevelt National Forest, Colorado, to correct the effects of an 
  erroneous land survey that resulted in approximately 7 acres of the 
Crystal Lakes Subdivision, Ninth Filing, encroaching on National Forest 
                  System land, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT AND LAND CONVEYANCES, ROOSEVELT NATIONAL 
              FOREST, COLORADO.

    (a) Boundary Adjustment.--The boundaries of Roosevelt National 
Forest, Colorado, are hereby modified to exclude from the national 
forest a parcel of real property consisting of approximately 7 acres 
within the Crystal Lakes Subdivision as depicted on the map entitled 
``Crystal Lakes Encroachment, HR 3299'' and dated July 15, 2008.
    (b) Conveyance of Land Removed From National Forest.--The Secretary 
of Agriculture shall use the authority provided by Public Law 97-465 
(commonly known as the Small Tracts Act; 16 U.S.C. 521c-521i) to convey 
all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real 
property excluded from the boundaries of Roosevelt National Forest 
under subsection (a) to the landowners whose real property adjoins the 
excluded land and who, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, 
occupy the excluded land.
    (c) Consideration.--The conveyances required by subsection (b) 
shall be made without consideration.
    (d) Description of Real Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
description of the land excluded from the boundaries of Roosevelt 
National Forest under subsection (a) and conveyed under subsection (b) 
shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary.
                                 <all>
```
§ 143.260 Fuel shutoff requirements. ( a ) This section does not apply to an excepted towing vessel as defined in § 136.110 of this subchapter.
( b ) To stop the flow of fuel in the event of a fire or break in the fuel line, a remote fuel shutoff valve must be fitted on any fuel line that supplies fuel directly to a propulsion engine or generator prime mover.
( c ) The valve must be installed in the fuel piping directly outside of the fuel oil supply tank.
( d ) The valve must be operable from a safe place outside the space where the valve is installed.
( e ) Each remote valve control must be marked in clearly legible letters, at least 25 millimeters (1 inch) high, indicating the purpose of the valve and the way to operate it.
PGRKiNscoie J 

Widci|Uin Dr. mns-3W) i\'rtiffRCacoori* 

April 8,2016 BftanG.!s%^h.rfi 

BSi i4iodi ifyeifciMCOK an 

D *1.202/434 I6S4 

P fl202.U4 9lfO 

BY EMAIL AND VJk MAIL 

3 _ Mr.'lliomas Hinlcnnislcr • I 

Aasistani StairDirector S cJ 

Audit Division aS 

Federal Flection Commission ^ 

999ESlreet.NW 

Washington. DC 20463 S i-nn-f 

Re: Brcnda Lawrence for Con|>reu 7;> 

Dear Mr. liintcnnisicr: 

On behalf of my client. Drcnda Lawrence for Congress ("the Committee"). I write in response to 

the Interim Audit Report of the Aralit l3ivuion. 'Ilw C!ommittce ha.s awpcreicd fully with the 

auditors at all stages of the process. Cwisisicnt with this cuuperutiiin. the Committee respectfully 

submits that it has complied fully with the Report's recommendations. 

This audit covered the Committee's activities fur the 2014 election cyclcp when Representative 

Lawrence was nist elected to Congress.' The Committee was primarily a ''storl-up" grassroots 

eflbn, with most of its work done by volunteers. As the Report indicates, none of the 

Commiiiee*s management had attended a Commission campaign flnancc seminar.^ However, 

since the audit began, the Conmiiltce has taken steps to bolster its compliance operations. The 

Committee has engaged a Washington. DC-based firm. Angcrholzer Droz Consulting, LLC, to 

handle its accounting and report preparation functions. 

The Report's only linding was that the Commiticc's 2U14 reports undcrsuted its disbursements 

by S2S,608 and accordingly overstated its ending cosh-on-huiul by $33,810. The source of the 

undersiaiemenl was the inad\'ertcnt omission of 2.3 disbuisemcnis that were spread out ox'cr a 

period of seven months, with one as small as $0.75. and with the largest for 53.258.86. Fxen 

bclbro the issuance of the Interim Audit Report, the Committee cooperated with the auditors to 

amend its reports, and materially corrected the omissions.' In the Interim Audit Report, the 

auditors indicated that additional adjustment wos needed to bring the cosh-on-hand fully in line, 

and the Committee is filing amendments with this response lu comply with this recommendation. 

' Rcpmentulve Lankrencr was tmetly a vandklMc fiir Congms in 3012 INII did me win the primary eieainn. 

' JSte Imcriiii Audk Report at 2. 

' .Sttf imerim Audil Report oi S. 
Federal Eleodon Commifliioii 

April 8.2016 

Fiige2 

The Committee ii oommitied to contiiiued complinice with the Federal Election CHnpeign Act 

of I97l» Bi amended, and we eppraiHate the ConuniBBkMi'i Gonudention of (hie nqxniee. 

Venrmily yom. 

Brian 0. Svobodi 

oc: , Mr. TedU Aamamaw 

Ma. Nicole Biifgeea
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.

§ 154.528 Piping joints: Flange type. ( a ) A flange must be one of the following types: ( 1 ) Welding neck.
( 2 ) Slip-on.
( 3 ) Socket weld.
( b ) If the piping is designed for a temperature between −10 °C (14 °F) and −55 °C (−67 °F), the pipe flange may be a: ( 1 ) Slip-on type, if the nominal pipe size is 100 mm (4 in.) or less;
( 2 ) Socket weld, if the nominal pipe size is 50 mm (2 in.) or less; or
( 3 ) Welding neck.
( c ) If the piping is designed for a temperature lower than −55 °C (−67 °F), the pipe flange must be a welding neck type.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0532 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-CE-016-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.015-3 Material and workmanship. ( a ) The unicellular plastic foam shall be all new material complying with the requirements of this specification. The results of the tests described in § 164.015-4 shall yield property values within the limits shown in Table 164.015-4(a).
( b ) The unicellular plastic foam shall be produced in sheet stock or molded shapes.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 07-14] 

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Brenda English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 07-14 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: April 11, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 19184)          ( print page 19185)          ( print page 19186)          ( print page 19187)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 07-1884 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
# C_2013046EN.01003302.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/33

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 March 2012 — BE v Commission

(Case F-49/11) (1)

1

2013/C 46/68

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011, p. 36.

1

---
#### BYRON H. BIRD, Respondent, *v.*EMILY A. CRANE, Appellant.

*Action by a Tion-resident plaintiff in a Justices’ Court*— *it may be brought anyvJwre in the county of the defendants residence —Code of Civil Procedure, secs.*2869,2876.

Appeal from a judgment of the Dutchess County Court, affirming a judgment rendered in a Justices’ Court.

On the return'day of the summons in the'Justices’ Court the defendant appeared specially and objected to the jurisdiction of the justice. The objection was overruled and defendant excepted:

The plaintiff was a non-resident at the time the action was commenced, and there was no proof in the case that the defendant lived in the town in which the action was brought, or in an adjoining town, or that plaintiff or his attorney was in the town in which the action was brought at the time of the commencement thereof.

The General Term, after considering and sustaining certain objections taken by the appellant, said: “ There is no basis for the argument against the jurisdiction of the justice by reason of the non-residence of the plaintiff. Under the Revised Statutes a non-resident could sue in any town in the county where such plaintiff £ may be.’ A commencement of a suit wac then the delivery of the summons to a constable for service. By the Code the suit can be brought before a justice by a non-resident in any town where such i.on-residént or his attorney *‘*is at the time of the commencement of the action.’ (See. 2869, sub. 2.) This would clearly leave the law as it was held to be in *Hunter*v. *Burtis*(10 Wend., 359); but for section 2876, which provides that the action is commenced before a justice by the *‘*service of a summons.’ It is claimed that the attorney must wait in the town where the summons wras issued until it is served, to give a justice jurisdiction.

“We think the legislature did not intend by these two sections (2869 and 2816) to impose any necessity for the personal attendance either of the non-resident or his attorney before the justice at the issuing of the summons, or that either of them should be there when the summons was served. A non-resident may sue anywhere in the county of the defendant’s residence.”

*532
      *Win. I. Thorn,*for the appellant.

*B. c& S. Baker,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Gilbert and Dykman, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of County Court and of the justice reversed, with costs.
# C_2011282EN.01005203.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/52

---

Action brought on 21 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-70/11)

2011/C 282/100

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008.

Form of order sought by the applicant

Form of order sought by the applicant

| — | Annul the applicant’s appraisal report for 2008, that is to say, the part of the report drawn up by EUROSTAT for that period; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicant’s appraisal report for 2008, that is to say, the part of the report drawn up by EUROSTAT for that period;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2014112EN.01002702.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2014 — Genebre v OHIM — General Electric (GE)

(Case T-520/11) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark GE - Earlier national word mark GE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 112/35

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Genebre, SA (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: General Electric Company (Schenectady, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, initially, then E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 July 2011 (Case R 20/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between General Electric Company and Genebre SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Genebre SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Genebre SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

1

---
EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

NAME                                       JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
----                                       -----------------------------
Dawson Production                                    Delaware         
Management, Inc.                                                      
                                                                      
Dawson Production                                    Delaware         
Acquisition Corp.                                                     
                                                                      
Dawson Production Services                           Mexico           
de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                                               
                                                                      
Ubicadora de Tecnicos,                               Mexico           
S.A. de C.V.                                                          
                                                                      
Mobley Vehicle Acquisition                           Texas            
Corp.                                                                 
                                                                      
Taylor Companies, Inc.                               Texas            
                                                                      
Dawson Production                                    Delaware         
Partners, L.P.                                                        
                                                                      
Dawson Production                                    Delaware         
Taylor, Inc.                                                          

                                       65
§ 15.850 Lookouts. ( a ) The requirements for the maintenance of a proper lookout are specified in Rule 5 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1602(c)), and Rule 5 of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980 (33 CFR part 83). Lookout is a function to be performed by a member of a navigational watch.
( b ) On vessels subject to STCW, the individual meeting the requirement of this section must also hold at least an STCW deck endorsement as rating forming part of a navigational watch, except as noted in § 15.105(g) of this part for vessels on domestic near-coastal voyages.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78008, Dec. 24, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.047-7 Recognized laboratory. ( a ) A manufacturer seeking Coast Guard approval of a product under this subpart shall follow the approval procedures of subpart 159.005 of this chapter, and shall apply for approval directly to a recognized independent laboratory. The following laboratories are recognized under § 159.010-7 of this part, to perform testing and approval functions under this subpart: Underwriters Laboratories, 12 Laboratory Drive, P.O. Box 13995, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3995, (919) 549-1400.
( b ) Production oversight must be performed by the same laboratory that performs the approval tests unless, as determined by the Commandant, the employees of the laboratory performing production oversight receive training and support equal to that of the laboratory that performed the approval testing.
[CGD 93-055, 61 FR 13930, Mar. 28, 1996]
# C_2012138EN.01004004.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/40

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 September 2011 — Mariën v SEAE

(Case F-15/11) (1)

(2012/C 138/102)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011, p. 30-31.

---