alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011282EN.01004701.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/47

---

Action brought on 4 August 2011 — Telefónica v Commission

(Case T-430/11)

2011/C 282/86

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez-Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Article 1(1) of the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(1) of the decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 1(4) and (5) of the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 1(4) and (5) of the decision;

| — | in the further alternative, annul Article 4 of the decision, or amend its scope as appropriate, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, annul Article 4 of the decision, or amend its scope as appropriate, and

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against the Commission's Decision of 12 January 2011 in Case No C 45/2007 (ex NN 51/2007, ex CP 9/2007), on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions implemented by Spain.

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-429/11 BBVA v Commission.

BBVA

Commission

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 24353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2181]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

Time and Date: May 21, 2007, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

Place: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested 
person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at (505) 827-4565 to receive the 
toll free number and pass code needed to participate in this meeting by 
telephone.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to 
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

    Dated: April 25, 2007.
William A. Quade,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 07-2181 Filed 4-30-07; 12:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday, February 9, 2007.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,

Acting Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-226 Filed 1-17-07; 11:27 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.138-3 Testing, marking, and inspection requirements. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76705 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) Fire stops (penetration seals) submitted for type approval must be tested for fire resistance under Annex 1, Part 3 of the FTP Code (incorporated by reference, see § 164.138-2). Such devices must also be tested in accordance with Appendices A.III and A.IV of IMO Resolution A.754(18) (incorporated by reference, see § 164.138-2).
( b ) All testing and inspections required by this subpart must be performed by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter. A list of independent laboratories accepted as meeting subpart 159.010 of this chapter is available online at *http://psix.uscg.mil/EQLabs/Default.aspx .*
( c ) The independent laboratory must perform an initial factory inspection to select the test specimens and establish the materials of construction, chemical make-up, dimensions, tolerances, and other related factors needed to confirm product consistency during follow-up production inspections.
( d ) Production inspections must be performed by the independent laboratory in accordance with subpart 159.007 of this chapter at least annually to confirm that no changes have been made to the product that may adversely affect its fire performance as a fire stop.
( e ) The independent laboratory must prepare production inspection procedures and a report of the results of the fire testing program, and must furnish the manufacturer with three copies of each upon completion of the required testing.
( f ) Materials approved under this subpart must be shipped in packaging that is clearly marked with the name of the manufacturer, product designation, date of manufacture, batch or lot number, and Coast Guard type approval number.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6847
WILLIAM F. JOHNSON; BRIAN S. MARTIN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-151-AM) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Johnson, Brian S. Martin, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellants appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice their motion for a temporary restraining order. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Angelone , No. CA-96-151-AM (E.D. Va. May 28, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 169.849 Posting placards containing instructions for launching and inflating inflatable liferafts.

Every vessel equipped with inflatable liferafts must have posted in conspicuous places readily accessible to the ship's company and guests approved placards containing instructions for launching and inflating inflatable liferafts. The number and location of such placards for a particular vessel shall be determined by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
| | CERTIFICATION | EXHIBIT 31.2
| | ------------- | ------------

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

|I, Barry L. Lazarus, certify that:
|----------------------------------
|                                  
|1.                                
|                                  
|2.                                
|                                  
|3.                                
|                                  
|4.                                
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|5.                                
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  



|Date:	November 7, 2003 
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ BARRY L. LAZARUS   
|                       
|By:		Barry L. Lazarus  
|Chief Financial Officer
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 June 10, 2006

|Filer                          | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------------------ | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|CRESCENT FINANCIAL CORPORATION | * 3A3         | Crescent Financial Corporation, Cary, North Carolina, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of Port City Capital Bank, Wilmington, North Carolina. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:07/10/2006
|Newspaper:                     | Not available
|Federal Register:              | 07/10/2006   

## 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

SOURCE II, INC.; and CERHUE ANDRE 

WALKER, individually and 

 d/b/a SOURCE II, INC. 

 Defendants.

, 

Case No. 15-cv-10740 

Honorable Robert H. Cleland 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 ORDER 

 This matter coming to be heard on Plaintiffs Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, 

Inc. and Defendants Source II, Inc. and Cerhue Andrew Walker, individually and d/b/a 

Source II, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”) Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, the 

Court being fully advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 All dates beyond the dispositive motion deadline of May 31, 2016 are 

SUSPENDED pending further order of the court. In the event no dispositive motion is 

filed, attorneys shall appear in person on June 6, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. in the Chambers 

of Judge Robert H. Cleland, 231 W Lafayette, Room 1021, Detroit, MI 48226. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

 ROBERT H. CLELAND 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 21, 2016 

2:15-cv-10740-RHC-APP Doc # 22 Filed 04/21/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 131
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record 

and/or pro se parties on this date, April 21, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 S/Lisa Wagner 

 Case Manager and Deputy Clerk 

 (313) 234-5522 

 

2:15-cv-10740-RHC-APP Doc # 22 Filed 04/21/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 132
MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 4, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Melanie King, Office of Ai r Quality Planning and Standards

SUBJECT: April 28, 2015 Consultation with Nava jo Nation and Salt River Project Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A consultation was held between EPA and the attendee(s) listed below on April 28, 2015, to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan Supplementa l Proposal for Existing Power Plants in Indian Country and U.S. Territories. The Clean Power Pl an Supplemental Proposal was issued on October 28, 2014, and published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Navajo Nation (in person) Stephen Etsitty

Harrison Tsosie April Quinn

Jim Staudt

Jill Grant Bethany Fisher Derek Dyson Greg Jones Simon Boyce Anthony Peterman Eugene Quintana Raju Bisht

Navajo Nation (by phone) Greg Kelly

Sam Woods Martin Ashley Michelle Henry

Arvin Mitchell

Bidtah Becker

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (by phone)

David Palumbo EPA (in person)

Janet McCabe William Niebling

EPA (by phone) Amy Zimpfer Ann Lyons

Anita Lee

Deborah Jordan Greg Green Chebryll Edwards Angela Hackel Melanie King Kevin Culligan Nate Topham

Rick Vetter
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 160.076-19 Recognized laboratories.

The approval and production oversight functions that this subpart requires to be conducted by a recognized laboratory must be conducted by an independent laboratory recognized by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of part 159 of this chapter to perform such functions. A list of recognized independent laboratories is available from the Commandant and online at *http://cgmix.uscg.mil.*

[USCG-2011-0076, 77 FR 19942, Apr. 3, 2012]
#### Sarah E. Sarles, *Appellant, v.*John Betts, *Respondent*.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
#### § 169.747 Watertight doors and hatches.

Each watertight door and watertight hatch must be marked on both sides in at least 1-inch letters: “WATERTIGHT DOOR—CLOSE IN EMERGENCY” or “WATERTIGHT HATCH—CLOSE IN EMERGENCY”, unless the markings are deemed unnecessary by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 26, 2018

No. 04

- 16

- 00786

- CV

Anthony MOORE and Joann Moore

, Appellant s

v.

David SUBIA

, Appellee

From the Cou nty Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV04165

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen A n gelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The Court has considered the Appellant ’ s Motion for Reconsideration En Banc and the

motion is DENIED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00276-CR

RUBEN D. MARQUEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1357251R

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Ruben D. Marquez attempts to appeal from his conviction for the 

third-degree felony of accident involving serious bodily injury. See Tex. Transp. 

Code Ann. § 550.021(c)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2015). Marquez pleaded guilty 

pursuant to a plea bargain, and in accordance with the plea bargain, the trial 

court sentenced him to ten years’ confinement. The trial court’s certification of 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

his right to appeal states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has 

NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On July 19, 2016, we notified Marquez that this appeal could be dismissed 

based on the trial court’s certification unless he or any party desiring to continue 

the appeal filed a response on or before July 25, 2016, showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. No response has 

been filed.

In accordance with the trial court’s certification, we therefore dismiss this 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 18, 2016

 

2That same day, we also notified Marquez that it appeared we lacked 

jurisdiction over this appeal because his notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). We also noted in the letter that Marquez’s motion 

for shock probation was granted by the trial court after he filed his notice of 

appeal and asked Marquez to notify this court if he wished to continue this 

appeal and, if so, to specify the grounds for doing so. See Pippin v. State, 271 

S.W.3d 861, 863–64 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.) (dismissing for want of 

jurisdiction appeal of order granting shock probation in state-jail felony case).
#### § 201.7 Information; special instructions.

Information as to procedure under the regulations in this part, and instructions supplementing the regulations in this part in special instances, will be furnished upon application to the Secretary of the Administration.
[No. 1794.]

#### Clark v. Clark.

Divorce and Alimony — Appellate Jurisdiction.

The court of appeals has no jurisdiction to review on appeal or writ of error an order or judgment for ali mony *pendente lite*entered in an action for divorce, since the order for alimony is only an incident to the action for divorce of which the court of appeals has no appellate jurisdiction.

*Appeal from the County Court of Arapahoe County.*

Mr. E. I. Stirman, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

*212Bissell, P. J.

This action for divorce was begun in the county court of Arapahoe county and a decree of divorce prayed. There was an answer and a cross-complaint. Apparently preceding these proceedings there was an application for alimony based on a separate proceeding, setting up divers facts and thereon the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $20.00 per month during the litigation. From this order thus made in the county court an appeal was taken under the statute to the district court. While tins particular feature of the controversy was pending in the district court, the main divorce suit was tried in the other tribunal and a verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff ajddging the defendant guilty and the plaintiff not guilty as appeared in the cross-complaint. After this verdict, by stipulation of counsel and of parties, the alimony portion of the suit was retransferred to the county court for determination. Therein further proceedings were had respecting alimony and the custody of the children and the final decree. Whether the latter statement be or be not true we do not verify by an examination of the record since it is wholly unimportant to the determination of this appeal.

The statement exhibits the fact that the order concerning alimony was made in a suit brought to obtain a divorce and wherein the plaintiff became entitled to his decree by the verdict of the jury. The claim for alimony and the court’s order respecting it was an incident to the suit, and this court therefore under the recent decisions is totally without jurisdiction. *Mercer v. Mercer,*13 Colo. App. 237; *Eickhoff v. Eichkoff,*14 Colo. App. 127; *Mercer v. Mercer,*27 Colo. 216. Therein all matters presented by this appeal have been determined adversely to the appellant and it has been held by both courts that in an action of this description, and under these circumstances, this court is without jurisdiction to review the decree or the judgment for alimony. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

*Dismissed.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:15−cr−20154−MFL−MJH

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

Sergio Collins,

Defendant(s),

NOTICE TO APPEAR

 The following defendant(s) are hereby notified to appear: Sergio Collins

 The defendant(s) shall appear before District Judge Matthew F. Leitman at the United

States District Court, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 600 Church Street, Flint,

Michigan, for the following proceeding(s):

• SUPERVISED RELEASE VIOLATION HEARING: June 23, 2022 at 01:30 PM

Certificate of Service

 I hereby certify that this Notice was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of

record were served.

By: s/Holly A Ryan 

Case Manager

Dated: June 15, 2022

Case 4:15-cr-20154-MFL-MJH ECF No. 33, PageID.177 Filed 06/15/22 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-18, PageID.458 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-18, PageID.459 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-18, PageID.460 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-18, PageID.461 Filed 04/07/15 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-18, PageID.462 Filed 04/07/15 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-18, PageID.463 Filed 04/07/15 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-18, PageID.464 Filed 04/07/15 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-18, PageID.465 Filed 04/07/15 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-18, PageID.466 Filed 04/07/15 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-18, PageID.467 Filed 04/07/15 Page 10 of 10
North Dakota Regional Haze 

EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406 

Summary of Dr. James Staudt’s Expertise 

Dr. Staudt is the Principal Owner of Andover Technology Partners, a management and 

technology consulting business that commenced operations in mid-1997. Dr. Staudt is a 

nationally recognized expert on air pollution control. He has authored emissions control 

technology documents and software that are used by air pollution control professionals in the 

United States, Europe, and Asia. He has developed cost and performance algorithms that are 

used by the EPA for assessment of NOx, SO2, and mercury control technologies. On behalf of 

his clients, he has testified in litigation and public hearings, appeared on television, and made 

presentations before Congressional staff. Dr. Staudt was the Programs Manager at Fuel Tech, 

Inc. from 1988-1990. Fuel Tech supplies proprietary air pollution control technologies and 

furnace additives to major industries worldwide. Fuel Tech is currently a market leader in 

SNCR. Dr. Staudt recently presented a paper at the AWMA, EPA, EPRI, DOE Combined Power 

Plant Air Pollution Control "Mega" Symposium, August 30-September 2, 2010, Baltimore, 

Maryland which reviewed the performance benefits in terms of ammonia slip, reagent 

consumption, and fly ash ammonia that is possible though optimization of SNCR operation using 

the information from continuous and real-time monitoring of ammonia slip.1

 

1

Staudt, J., Hoover, B., Trautner, P., McCool, S., and Frey, J., “Optimization of Constellation Energy’s SNCR 

System at Crane Units 1 and 2 Using Continuous Ammonia Measurement,” AWMA, EPA, EPRI, DOE Combined 

Power Plant Air Pollution Control “Mega” Symposium, August 30-September 2, 2010, Baltimore, MD