alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015073EN.01000301.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Council of the European Union, European Commission v Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe

(Joined Cases C-404/12 P and C-405/12 P) (1)

(Appeals - Regulation (EC) No 149/2008 - Regulation setting maximum residue levels for pesticides - Request for internal review of that regulation, submitted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision declaring the request inadmissible - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in the light of that convention)

(2015/C 073/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, P. Oliver and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe (represented by: A. van den Biesen, advocaat)

Intervener in support of the appellants: Czech Republic (represented by D. Hadroušek, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the cross-appeal;

| 2) | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission (T-338/08, EU:T:2012:300); |
| --- | --- |

2)

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission (T-338/08, EU:T:2012:300);

| 3) | Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe before the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3)

Dismisses the application for annulment lodged by Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe before the General Court of the European Union;

| 4) | Orders Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe to pay jointly and severally the costs incurred at first instance and in the appeals by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe to pay jointly and severally the costs incurred at first instance and in the appeals by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

| 5) | Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5)

Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

---
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.20-40 Chief engineer's reports. ( a ) Repairs to boilers and pressure vessels. The chief engineer is required to report any repairs to boilers or unfired pressure vessels in accordance with §§ 33.25-5, 78.33-1, and 97.30-1 of this chapter.
( b ) The chief engineer of any vessel is required to report any accident to a boiler, unfired pressure vessel, or machinery tending to render the further use of the item unsafe until repairs are made by §§ 35.25-5, 78.33-5, and 97.30-5 of this chapter.
( c ) When fusible plugs in boilers are renewed at a time other than the inspection for certification and there is no marine inspector in attendance at the renewal, the chief engineer must report the renewal of the fusible plugs by letter to the OCMI who issued the certificate of inspection. This letter report must contain the following information: ( 1 ) Name and official number of vessel.
( 2 ) Date of renewal of fusible plugs.
( 3 ) Number and location of fusible plugs renewed in each boiler.
( 4 ) Manufacturer and heat number of each plug.
( 5 ) Reason for renewal.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16604, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18804, Dec. 18, 1968; USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58341, Sept. 30, 2004]
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2435 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the tax-free treatment 

for distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Ms. KOSMAS 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 extend 

the tax-free treatment for distributions from individual 

retirement plans for charitable purposes. 

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 ‘‘IRA Charitable Giving 

5 Act’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2435 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM IN2 DIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLANS FOR CHARI3 TABLE PURPOSES. 

4 Subparagraph (F) of section 408(d)(8) of the Inter5 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘De6 cember 31, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### Alfred Curry, *Respondent, v.*John W. Adams, Appellant.

Order denying new trial upon case made, and upon affidavits alleging newly discovered evidence, affirmed with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
Exhibit 13




CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF


FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT


AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Cimatron Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Dan Haran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ilan Erez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b)/Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: June 30, 2011





By
/s/ Dan HaranDan HaranPresident and Chief Executive OfficerBy
/s/ Ilan ErezIlan ErezChief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBIN HEISE, No. 15-11736

Plaintiff, District Judge George Caram Steeh

v. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

On May 15, 2015, Plaintiff Robin Heise filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

and 42 U.S.C. § 1383, challenging Defendant Commissioner’s decision denying

disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion

to Transfer the Case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida [Doc.

#6], premised on the fact that Plaintiff resides in Tarpon Springs, Florida. See Doc. #1, ¶¶

1,3.

An action under § 405(g) “shall be brought in the district court of the United States

for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides.” In addition, 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3)

provides for “judicial review as provided in section 405(g) of this title to the same extent

as the Commissioner’s final determinations under section 405 of this title.” Tarpon

Springs, Florida, located in Pinellas County, lies in the Middle District of Florida.

Accordingly, venue lies in the Middle District of Florida

In her response [Doc. #8], Plaintiff states she has no objection to transferring this

case.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to transfer [Doc. #6] is

-1-

2:15-cv-11736-GCS-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 10/07/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 23
GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transfer this case to the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

 s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: October 7, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on

October 7, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/C. Ciesla 

Case Manager 

-2-

2:15-cv-11736-GCS-RSW Doc # 9 Filed 10/07/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 24
# C_2012366EN.01003403.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/34

---

Order of the General Court of 28 September 2012 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS)

(Case T-639/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Refusal to register - Withdrawal of the application to register - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 366/68

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Heads! GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and T. Bösling, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Walicka, agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 October 2011 (Case R 2348/2010-1) relating to an application for registration of the word mark ‘HEADS’ as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

1

---
Exhibit 32

Certification pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Vince A. Elhilow, President and Chief Executive Officer and Richard D. Aldred,
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Fidelity Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) each certify in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the annual report of the Company on Form 10-K for
the fiscal ended December 31, 2003 and that to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



|               |  |  |  |                                          
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|March 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Vince A. Elhilow                     
|Date           |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer    
|               |  | 
|March 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Richard D. Aldred                    
|Date           |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
|               |  |  |  | Officer and Treasurer
§ 181.310 Fire main and hydrants. ( a ) A vessel that has a power driven fire pump must have a sufficient number of fire hydrants to reach any part of the vessel using a single length of firehose.
( b ) Piping, valves, and fittings in a fire main system must comply with subpart G, part 182, of this chapter.
( c ) Each fire hydrant must have a valve installed to allow the firehose to be removed while the fire main is under pressure.
( d ) Spanner wrenches must be provided where a 40 millimeter (1.5 inch) diameter firehose is required by § 181.320(b). Existing vessels as of July 22, 2016 have 180 days to comply with this requirement.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 982, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51358, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48299, July 22, 2016]
§ 138.500 Notification prior to audit. ( a ) The owner or managing operator of a towing vessel must notify the local OCMI at least 72 hours prior to an external audit being conducted under this part.
( b ) The Coast Guard may require that a Coast Guard representative accompany the auditor during part, or all, of an external audit.
( c ) The Coast Guard may conduct a separate audit of the owner or managing operator or its towing vessels, at its discretion.
#### § 294.7 Procedural waivers.

In consultation with DoD, MARAD may, at MARAD's own initiation or in response to a request by an interested party, after a finding of good cause to suspend, revoke, amend, or waive any requirement of the regulations in this part, subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and any statutory limitations.
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 1 of 18 Pg ID 1
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 2 of 18 Pg ID 2
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 3 of 18 Pg ID 3
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 4 of 18 Pg ID 4
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 5 of 18 Pg ID 5
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 6 of 18 Pg ID 6
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 7 of 18 Pg ID 7
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 8 of 18 Pg ID 8
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 9 of 18 Pg ID 9
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 10 of 18 Pg ID 10
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 11 of 18 Pg ID 11
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 12 of 18 Pg ID 12
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 13 of 18 Pg ID 13
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 14 of 18 Pg ID 14
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 15 of 18 Pg ID 15
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 16 of 18 Pg ID 16
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 17 of 18 Pg ID 17
2:15-mj-30276-DUTY Doc # 1 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 18 of 18 Pg ID 18
NO. 07-03-0518-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JANUARY 22, 2004

______________________________ IN RE: HO LLIS POS EY, RELA TOR

_________________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION Relator Hollis Posey seeks a writ of mandamusordering respondent, the Honorable Abe Lopez, Judge of the 108 th District Court of Potter County, to take action on a motion filed by relator in cause number 44,635-E in the 108 th District Court of Potter County. We deny the petition. In his petition, relator alleges that he has f iled a motion seeking a nunc pro tunc order in the re ferenced trial cou rt case. W e are req uested to order res pondent to rule on the motio n seekin g a nunc pro tunc o rder.2

In support of

the peti tion for writ of mandamus, relator attached copies of (1) the State’s Motion to

Dismissand the Or d er dismissing the referenced cause, (2) relator’s Petition for Expu nction, a nd (3) a l etter to th e Hale C ounty District Clerk filing the petition and requesting notification of any rulings on the motion. No other document or record of proceedi ngs is at

tached to

or furnis hed in s upport of the peti tion. When petition for writ of mandam us is mad e, it is t h e relator’s burden to show entitlement to the re lief bei ng reque sted. See generally Johnson v. Fourth District C our t o f Appeals , 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding). Th e showing must, in part, be by ce rtified, sworn cop y of every document

that is m aterial to the relator’s claim for relief and whi ch was fi led in a ny underl ying pro ceeding
. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 52.7(a). Relatorsseeking issuance of a writ of mandamus must satisfy three requirements to show entitlement to the writ: (1) a legal duty to p erform; (2) a demand for performance; and (3) a refu sal to a ct. Stoner v. Massey , 586 S.W.2 d 843, 84 6 (Tex. 1 979). A court is not required to consi der a moti on not ca lled to its atten tion. Metzger v. Sebek , 892 S.W.2d 20, 49 (Tex.Ap p.--Houst on[1st Di st.] 1994, wr it denie d). Showing that a motion was file d with th e court cle rk does n ot constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention or presen ted to thetrial co urt with arequest f or a ruling. See I n re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 22 5, 228 (T ex.App.- -Amarill o 2001) ( orig. pro ceeding ). Relator’s peti tion doe s not demo nstrate th at his mo tion hasbeen cal led to respon den t’s attention or presented to respondent for a ruling, nor does h e present certified, sworn co pies of m aterial d ocuments. Relator has not presented a record which shows en titlement

to the re lief sou ght.3

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Phil Johnson Chief Justice
§ 196.40-15 Load line marks. ( a ) Vessels assigned a load line shall have the deck line and the load line marks permanently marked or embossed as required by Subchapter E (Load Lines) of this chapter.
# C_2011282EN.01004002.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/40

---

Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad v Commission

(Case T-406/11)

2011/C 282/76

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Prosegur Compañía de Seguridad, S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro and M. Muñoz de Juan, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Admit and uphold the request for the taking of evidence; |
| --- | --- |

—

Admit and uphold the request for the taking of evidence;

| — | admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in this application; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in this application;

| — | annul Article 1(1) of the Decision insofar as it declares that Article 12(5) of the Spanish Law on corporation tax comprises elements of State aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(1) of the Decision insofar as it declares that Article 12(5) of the Spanish Law on corporation tax comprises elements of State aid;

| — | alternatively, annul Article 1(1) of the Decision insofar as it declares that Article 12(5) of the Spanish Law on corporation tax comprises elements of State aid when applied to shareholding acquisitions that involve acquisition of control; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul Article 1(1) of the Decision insofar as it declares that Article 12(5) of the Spanish Law on corporation tax comprises elements of State aid when applied to shareholding acquisitions that involve acquisition of control;

| — | alternatively, annul Article 4 of the Decision insofar as it applies the recovery order to transactions concluded prior to publication in the OJEU of the final Decision to which this action refers; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul Article 4 of the Decision insofar as it applies the recovery order to transactions concluded prior to publication in the OJEU of the final Decision to which this action refers;

| — | alternatively, annul Article 1(1) and, alternatively, Article 4 of the Decision insofar as it refers to transactions carried out in Argentina, Peru and Colombia; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul Article 1(1) and, alternatively, Article 4 of the Decision insofar as it refers to transactions carried out in Argentina, Peru and Colombia;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against Commission Decision C(2010) 9566, of 12 January 2011, on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions.

The pleas and main arguments are those already put forward in Case T-399/11, Banco de Santander and Santusa Holding v Commission.

---
#### Charles A. Hammond, *Appellant, v.*Charles Leonard, *as Overseer, etc., Respondent*.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 185.507 Passenger egress drills. ( a ) The master of a vessel described by 46 CFR 175.110(d) must conduct passenger emergency egress drills from the passengers' assigned overnight accommodation spaces prior to beginning an excursion with new passengers. ( 1 ) If the passengers are not assigned an overnight accommodation space, the master of a vessel described by 46 CFR 175.110(d) must conduct passenger emergency egress drills from an accommodation space prior to beginning an excursion with new passengers.
( 2 ) For the purposes of this section, excursion includes anytime the vessel gets underway, or anytime passengers remain overnight on the vessel.
( b ) Passenger egress drills must be logged or otherwise documented for review by the Coast Guard upon request. The drill entry must include the following information: ( 1 ) Date and time of the drill; and
( 2 ) Number of drill participants.
[USCG-2021-0306, 86 FR 73173, Dec. 27, 2021, as amended by USCG-2021-0306, 88 FR 17741, Mar. 24, 2023]
#### § 308.513 Payment of premiums and fees.

The assured shall pay the premium, when his closing report is filed, for all shipments shown on his closing report for the preceding month, at the rates prescribed by the Maritime Administrator and in effect on the date of the ocean bill of lading, or if an ocean bill of lading was not issued, on the date of the equivalent shipping document, or if no ocean bill of lading or equivalent shipping document was issued, or if such documents were undated, on the date the goods were laden on the overseas vessel, as required by Clause 19. All payments of premium or fees must be made by check or money order payable to the order of ”Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.”
§ 197.402 Responsibilities of the person-in-charge. ( a ) The person-in-charge shall— ( 1 ) Be fully cognizant of the provisions of this subpart;
( 2 ) Prior to permitting any commercial diving operation to commence, have— ( i ) The designation of the diving supervisor for each diving operation as required by § 197.210;
( ii ) A report on— ( A ) The nature and planned times of the planned diving operation; and
( B ) The planned involvement of the vessel or facility, its equipment, and its personnel in the diving operation.
( b ) Prior to permitting any commercial diving operation involving liveboating to commence, the person-in-charge shall insure that— ( 1 ) A means of rapid communications with the diving supervisor while the diver is entering, in, or leaving the water is established; and
( 2 ) A boat and crew for diver pickup in the event of an emergency is provided.
( c ) The person-in-charge shall insure that a boat and crew for SCUBA diver pickup is provided when SCUBA divers are not line-tended from the dive location.
( d ) The person-in-charge shall coordinate the activities on and of the vessel or facility with the diving supervisor.
( e ) The person-in-charge shall insure that the vessel or facility equipment and personnel are kept clear of the dive location except after coordinating with the diving supervisor.
[CGD 76-009, 43 FR 53683, Nov. 16, 1978, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58289, Sept. 29, 2014]
§ 174.190 Collision bulkhead. ( a ) Each OSV must have a collision bulkhead in compliance with §§ 171.085(c)(1), (d), (e)(2), and (f) of this chapter.
( b ) Penetration of the collision bulkhead by piping must be minimal, and, where fitted, piping must meet the requirements of §§ 56.50-1(b)(1) and (c) and 128.230 of this chapter.