alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014282EN.01002502.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-16/11) (1)

1

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch - Rights of the defence))

2014/C 282/32

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Ree, M. Noort, M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg, F. Wilman and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2008 in the total amount of EUR 2 8 9 47  149.31.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it applies a financial correction to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the context of the European quota system in relation to the production of potato starch for 2003 to 2008;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

1

---
#### Bartlett v. McNeil.

Bupp~ementa~ry proeeeth,n93.

Supplementary proceedings (Code, § 293) are not authorized in a judgment not *in personam.*

Appeal by plaintiff, Charles W. Bartlett, from an order at the special term, allowing an amendment to the judgment-roll; also from an order denying a motion that the court fix a time for defendant, Alexander McNeil, to appear and be examined in supplementary proceedings.

*John H. Bergen,*for appellant.

*Beebe, Wilcox & Hobbs,*for respondent.

Davis, P. J.

The onfy point of interest passed upon is fully set forth in the head-note.

*Orders affirmed.*
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 D0 55 1 . ANGELA BROW N v

. KEI TH BROW N.

Up o n co n si d erat i o n , An g el a Bro w n ’ s ap p l i cat io n fo r d i s cret i on ary ap p eal i s h ereb y DENIED. Kei t h Bro wn ’ s req u es t fo r s an ct io n s pu rs u an t t o Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 1 0 i s h ereb y

DENIED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## August 09, 2017

08/09/2017
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.

§ 154.630 Cargo tank material. ( a ) If a material of a cargo tank is not listed in §§ 154.610, 154.615 or § 154.620, the allowable stress of that material must be specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG).
( b ) For cargo tanks of aluminum alloys with welded connections, the minimum tensile strength (σB) for the calculations under § 154.440, § 154.447 and § 154.450 must be the minimum tensile strength of the alloy in the annealed condition.
( c ) Increased yield strength and tensile strength of a material at low temperature for independent tanks type A, B, and C must be specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG).
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
# C_2011269EN.01003402.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of DBI-Fonds APT No 737 v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

(Case C-341/11)

2011/C 269/67

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of DBI-Fonds APT No 737

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?

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Randall R. Lay, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 of Universal Access GlobalHoldings Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: August 14, 2003

 
|  /S/ Randall R. Lay |
|--------------------------|
| Randall R. Lay           |
| Chief Executive Officer  |

 

 

----
###### 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.

#### § 154.1745 Vinyl chloride: Transferring operations.

A vessel carrying vinyl chloride must meet the requirements of § 151.50-34(g) through (k) of this chapter.

[CGD 95-012, 60 FR 48051, Sept. 18, 1995]
#### ALBERT J. LUEBBERS, APPELLANT, v. CHARLES J. SCHAAL, RESPONDENT.

Decided June 5, 1929.

Before Justices Tbkstchabd, Kalisch and Lloyd.

*548Eor the appellant, *Frederick W. Schlosstein.*

Eor the respondent, *Walter D. Van Riper.*

Pee Cueiam.

By a *per curiam*opinion filed in the instant case, and reported in 7 *N. J. Mis. R.*310, it appears that the judgment of the District Court was' affirmed. It is there stated that the trial'judge gave judgment for $50 in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendant, and that the defendant appealed to this court, whereas there was a judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed, which judgment was affirmed. It is further stated in' the opinion, that no specifications of causes for reversal of the judgment were filed, pointing out any particular error relied on by the appellant for a reversal.

It appears that the state of the case agreed upon by the attorneys of the respective parties, and printed as the state of the case, did not contain the specifications of determinations of the District Court, but, such determinations were printed, and were submitted under a separate cover, and were filed with the clerk of the court, within due time, but through inadvertence were not before the court when the case came up for consideration.

The appellant having applied for a rehearing, we have reached the conclusion that the application be allowed, and that the cause be noticed for a rehearing before this court at the state house in Trenton, on the twentieth day of June, 1929, at one o’clock in the afternoon of that day.
§ 169.245 Lifesaving equipment. At each inspection for certification and periodic inspection the following tests and inspections of lifesaving equipment will be conducted: ( a ) All air tank buoyant units of all lifesaving appliances are tested for airtightness.
( b ) Each lifeboat is lowered to near the water and loaded with its allowed capacity, evenly distributed throughout the length. The total weight used is at least equal to the allowed capacity of the lifeboat considering persons to weigh 75 kg (165 pounds) each. The lifeboat is then lowered into the water until it is afloat and released from the falls.
( c ) Each personal flotation device is examined to determine its serviceability. If found to be satisfactory, it is stamped “Passed,” together with the date and the port. If found to be unsatisfactory, the personal flotation device must be removed from the vessel's equipment and repaired. If it is beyond repair it must be destroyed in the presence of the Coast Guard inspector.
( d ) Each lifeboat winch electrical control apparatus is opened and inspected.
( e ) Where gravity davits are installed, it must be demonstrated that the lifeboat can be swung out and lowered from any stopped position by merely releasing the brake on the lifeboat winch. The use of force to start the davits or the lifeboat winch is not permitted.
( f ) Inflatable liferaft containers are examined for defects and the inspector verifies that the inflatable liferafts and hydraulic releases, if installed, have been serviced at an approved facility in accordance with the provisions of subparts 160.051 and 160.062, respectively, of this chapter.
( g ) All other items of lifesaving equipment are examined to determine that they are in suitable condition.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6508, Feb. 9, 2000]
§ 170.070 Applicability. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to each vessel.
( b ) This subpart does not apply to any of the following vessels unless the stability of the vessel is questioned by the OCMI, or regulations by which the vessel is inspected require their application: ( 1 ) A passenger vessel that— ( i ) Is less than 100 gross tons;
( ii ) Is less than 65 feet (19.8 meters) LOD measured over the weather deck; and
( iii ) Carries 49 or less passengers.
( 2 ) A deck cargo barge that complies with the requirements in § 174.020 of this chapter.
( 3 ) A tank vessel that only carries a product listed in § 30.25-1 of this chapter and that is less than 150 gross tons.
( 4 ) A tank barge that— ( i ) Operates only in rivers or lakes, bays, and sounds service;
( ii ) Does not have to meet 33 CFR part 157, subpart B; and
( iii ) Only carries a product listed in § 30.25-1 of this chapter.
( 5 ) A sailing school vessel that is an open boat that complies with the requirements in § 173.063(e) of this subchapter.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51010, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 83-005, 51 FR 923, Jan. 9, 1986; USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78083, Dec. 14, 2010]
AMENDED SCHEDULE A TO INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT DATED MAY 1, 2006 BETWEEN INLAND INVESTMENT ADVISORS, INC ("Adviser") INLAND RETAIL REAL ESTATE TRUST, INC. ("Client")  1. This Schedule A may be amended from time to time by Adviser upon 30 days' written notice to Client. 2. Fee Schedule as of May 1, 2006: Client shall pay or cause to be paid to Adviser as remuneration for its services under this Agreement a percent per annum based on the schedule below as an investment management fee on all assets under management. A. as an investment management fee on all equity assets under management:  from $0 - $10,000,000 fee is 1 percent (1.0%) of assets  from $10,000,001 - $25,000,000 fee is 90 basis points (.90%) of assets  from $25,000,001 - $50,000,000 fee is 80 basis points (.80%) of assets  over $50,000,000 fee is 75 basis points (.75%) of assets  an additional performance fee calculated at the end of each calendar year of:  50 basis points (1/2%) if the annualized net profit is 15% - 20%  1% if the annualized net profit is 20%+  B. as an investment management fee on all contracts (other than covered calls) related to futures and/or options only:  50 basis points (1/2 %) on the option value on the date the position is closed; and  5% of the all profits earned on futures and/or options provided client earns a annual minimum return of 20% on closed positions during the calendar year ending December 31st or if Agreement is terminated prior to that date earned until such date. In addition, Client will be responsible for any third party fees and charges as described in Section II of the Agreement. The fee will be computed and due monthly based on the average daily net asset value. The fee will be deducted from cash available in the account, and if there is no cash available, asset(s) will be sold in an amount equal to the payment due.
# C_2011252EN.01003302.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/33

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 21 June 2011 — MB System v Commission

(Case T-209/11 R)

(Application for interim measures - State aid - Recovery obligation - Application for stay of execution - Urgency - Balancing of interests)

2011/C 252/77

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MB System GmbH & Co. KG (Nordhausen, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen, M. Ackermann and C. Geiert, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 8289 final of 14 December 2010 on State aid No C 38/2005 (ex NN 52/2004) granted by Germany to the Biria Group.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2011269EN.01003602.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/36

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 7 July 2011 — Maahanmuuttovirasto

(Case C-357/11)

2011/C 269/75

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Maahanmuuttovirasto

Appellant:

Other party: L

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 20 TFEU preclude a third-country national from being refused a residence permit because of lack of means of subsistence in a family situation in which his spouse is the carer of a child who is a citizen of the Union and the third-country national is not that child’s parent or carer and does not live with his spouse or with that child? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 20 TFEU preclude a third-country national from being refused a residence permit because of lack of means of subsistence in a family situation in which his spouse is the carer of a child who is a citizen of the Union and the third-country national is not that child’s parent or carer and does not live with his spouse or with that child?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, must the effect of Article 20 TFEU be assessed differently if the third-country national who does not have a residence permit, and does not live in Finland, and his spouse have a child, in their joint care and living in Finland, who is a third-country national? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, must the effect of Article 20 TFEU be assessed differently if the third-country national who does not have a residence permit, and does not live in Finland, and his spouse have a child, in their joint care and living in Finland, who is a third-country national?

---
§ 121.100 General requirement. ( a ) Vessel control systems and other miscellaneous systems and equipment required by this part must be suitable for the purposes intended.
( b ) The cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) may require navigation, control, or communications equipment, in excess of the equipment specifically required by this part, on a vessel that is of a novel design, operates at high speeds in restricted or high traffic areas, operates in a dynamically supported mode, or operates on extended routes or in remote locations.
#### § 129.530 General alarm.

Each vessel must be fitted with a general alarm that complies with subpart 113.25 of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, 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 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.371 Minimum relief valve setting for refrigerated cargo tanks. The relief valve setting for a containment system that carries a refrigerated cargo must at least equal the lesser of: ( a ) That in § 153.370; or
( b ) 110 percent of the cargo's vapor pressure at the steady state temperature obtained by a full tank of cargo with the refrigeration system operating under ambient conditions described within the definition of a refrigerated tank in § 153.2.
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: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending November 12, 2005

|Filer                          | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                               | End of Comment Period                              
|------------------------------ | -------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|NATIONAL PENN BANCSHARES, INC. | 4c8            | National Penn Bancshares, Inc., Boyertown, PA, to acquire 100% of Nittany Financial Corp., State College, PA, and thereby indirectly acquire Nittany Bank, State College, PA. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:12/08/2005
|Newspaper:                     | Not applicable
|Federal Register:              | 12/08/2005    

## 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