alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013260EN.01001701.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/17

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Citroën Belux NV v Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)

(Case C-265/12) (1)

1

(Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Consumer protection - Combined offers involving at least one financial service - Prohibition - Exceptions)

2013/C 260/28

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Citroën Belux NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU and of Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — National consumer-protection legislation which prohibits generally, subject to exceptions exhaustively set out, any combined offer containing at least one financial service

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted, as must Article 56 TFEU, as not precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a general prohibition — save in the cases exhaustively listed by the national legislation — of combined offers made to consumers where at least one of the components of those offers is a financial service.

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 99.20****CONSENT OF EXPERT**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Cameco Corporation (the“Company”) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     I hereby consent to the use of and reference to my name under the heading “The NuclearBusiness — Reserves and Resources” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year endedDecember 31, 2006, dated March 30, 2007 (the “AIF”), under the heading “Qualified Persons” inManagement’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the yearended December 31, 2006 (the “MD&A”) and in the 40-F, and to disclosure of a scientific andtechnical nature pursuant to which I have acted in a supervisory capacity under the heading “TheNuclear Business — Reserves and Resources” of the AIF and under the heading “Qualified Persons” inthe MD&A.Sincerely,*/s/ Steve Lunsford*
§ 42.13-40 Details of marking. ( a ) The ring, lines and letters shall be painted in white or yellow on a dark ground or in black on a light ground. They shall also be permanently marked on the sides of the vessels to the satisfaction of the assigning authority. The marks shall be plainly visible and, if necessary, special arrangements shall be made for this purpose.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10060, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9014, June 5, 1969]
Exhibit 32.1 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report Octillion Corp. (the Company) on the Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nicholas Cucinelli, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  OCTILLION CORP.Date: April 11, 2008By:/s/ Nicholas CucinelliNicholas Cucinelli
President and Chief Executive Officer  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2014085EN.01000401.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-270/12) (1)

1

(Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 - Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps - Article 28 - Validity - Legal basis - Powers of intervention conferred on the European Securities and Markets Authority in exceptional circumstances)

2014/C 85/06

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: A. Robinson, Agent, J. Stratford QC and A. Henshaw, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard, R. Van de Westelaken, D. Gauci and A. Gros-Tchorbadjiyska, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Legal, A. De Elera and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, Agents)

Defendants:

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and E. Ranaivoson, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and F. Urbani Neri, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, B. Smulders, C. Zadra and R. Vasileva, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment — Validity of Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (OJ 2012 L 86, p. 1) — Institutional balance — Infringement of the conditions established by the case-law of the Court of Justice for the delegation of powers to agencies — Infringement of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU — Infringement of Article 114 TFEU — Attribution of powers of intervention to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) — Margin of discretion conferred on ESMA as regards the need for it to intervene and the measures to be adopted — Nature of the measures capable of being adopted by ESMA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2015

s1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2015

151748 & (99)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151748

COA: 318661

Wayne CC: 00-005882-FC

KEVIN J. MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to permit filing in pro per supplemental pleading 

is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2015 judgment of the 

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2424]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review, Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 15, 2007, 8 a.m. to June 
15, 2007, 5 p.m. Serrano Hotel, 405 Taylor Street, San Francisco, CA 
94102 which was published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2007, 72 FR 
25324-25325.
    The meeting will be held one day only on June 14, 2007. The meeting 
time and location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the 
public.

    Dated: May 8, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2424 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0938 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-271-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here Work-hours

(include

access, testing,

and close-up) Labor

cost

(@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet

Chem-Mill Step

Inspection 36.7 $3,119.5

0 $3,119.50 6 $18,717.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $18,717



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work-hours

(include access,

testing, and closeup) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : All parts are to

### be furnished by the operator. Therefore, an estim ate of the parts cost is not include in the Total

Costs summary.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO

*Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES* NO

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a s ubstantial number of small entities? Explain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO



### * Explanation 

### :
EXHIBIT 99.18
 CONSENT OF EXPERT
   (a)
    
    under the headings The Nuclear Business  Reserves and Resources, The Nuclear
Business  Mining Properties  McArthur River and Interest of Experts in the
Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2008 dated March
27, 2009 for the McArthur River/Key Lake properties; and(b)
    
    under the headings Our Mineral Reserves and Resources  Mineral Reserves and
Resources and Qualified Persons in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31, 2008 dated February
16, 2009 for the McArthur River/Key Lake properties,
    /s/ David BronkhorstName:
    
    David Bronkhorst, P. Eng.Title:
    
    General Manager, McArthur River, Cameco Corporation
W ood C oa t i ng R u l e 74

. 30 S tan Cowen to: S tan l e y T ong 10 / 31 / 2011 09 : 29

AM
Hi s t o r y: Th i s m e ss age ha s been r ep li ed t o and f o rw a r ded.

Hi S t a n l e y,

T h i s e m ail i s i n r

e s p o n s e t o y o u r c all o n Oc t 28

, 2011

, r e ga r d i n g o u r woo d c

o a t i n g
r u l e VOC li m i t of

240 g/l p e r woo d s

e al e rs

. W hen t h i s li m i t w

a s a d o p te d i n t he

m i d

- 90 s , i t w a s b a s ed o n S C AQ MD R u l e

1136

. I f y o u r e vi e w t he i r A p r il 8

, 1994

, S C AQ MD s t a ff r ep o r t, t he

y h av e p r o p os ed a 240 g/l li m i t for t h i s

c a te g o r y

. H ow e v e r , a t t he t i m e, t he

y i nd i c a te d t h a t t h i s w

a s a ch all en gi n g li m i t, a nd de f e rr ed t he c o mp lia nce d a te fro m A p r il 1

, 1995 t o Ju ly 1

, 1996

. I a m un s

u r e

w hen S C AQ MD d e c i ded t o a b a nd o n t he 240 g/l li m i t i n f av o r of t he 275 g/l

, w

h i ch i s t he i r cu rr ent li m i t.

T he m ai n p o i n t t

o r e m e mb e r w

hen r e f e rr i n g t o VC A PC D R u l e 74

. 30 i s t h a t t h i s li m i t o n ly a pp li e s t

o n e w woo d c o a t i n g s , n o t woo d r

e f i n i s h i n g ( So u t h C o a s t AQ MD h a s n o t m a de t h i s

d i s t i nc t i o n s i nce Ju ly 1998)

. T he p r

o duc t s a r e availa b l e a nd t he y wo r k for

n e w woo d

. T he r

e i s n o n eed for va r ia nce s o r

c o n t r o l equ i pmen t

. T he li n k fro m S

he r w i n Willia m s

( t he wo r l d la r

g e s t p ai n t c o mp a n y ) h a s m a n y p r o duc t s t h a t m eet t h i s li m i t. h tt p: // www

. s he r w i n -w illia m s

. c o m /g r een s u r e / p r o duc t -f i n i s he s/

L et m e k n ow i f y

o u need a n y o t he r i n fo. S t a n C ow en VC A PCD
#### § 169.805 Exhibition of merchant mariner credentials.

Officers on any vessel subject to this subchapter must have their license or merchant mariner credential in their possession and available for examination at all times when the vessel is being operated.

[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11266, Mar. 16, 2009]
Exhibit 99.16
                             Selected Information
                      Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2000-D
                           through December 31, 2000
                    ----------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

           Class A-1        Class A-2        Class A-3        Class A-4        Class A-5        Class B
           7.008%           7.06%            7.15%            7.13%            7.15%            7.40%
           Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset            Asset
           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed
           Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes            Notes
           ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------     -------------



<S>        <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>

Principal
Paid       $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00  $          0.00

Interest
Paid       $ 11,878,754.67  $  9,813,400.00  $  8,116,441.67  $  6,249,246.93  $  4,223,862.50  $  2,077,886.30

---------------
Total Servicing Fees Paid:  $  8,618,179.26



</TABLE>
# C_2013114EN.01002001.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — SC Mora IPR SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Sibiu

(Case C-79/12) (1)

1

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 211 - Deferred payment of VAT on importation)

2013/C 114/28

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Mora IPR SRL

Applicant:

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Județeană pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Sibiu

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Interpretation of Article 211 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 26(2), 28, 30 and 107 TFEU — Right of Member States to authorise deferment of VAT on importation — Whether it is permissible for national legislation to impose a condition for obtaining a payment deferment certificate, not provided for under the Directive — Later legislative amendments exempting only certain taxable persons from payment of VAT on importation — Discrimination — Breach of the prohibition on import duties

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 211 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the application of legislative rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which make the deferred payment of value added tax due on imported goods conditional on obtaining a certificate that is not required under the wording of that directive, provided that the conditions for obtaining such a certificate comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

1

---
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: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending February 10, 2007

|Filer                        | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | End of Comment Period                                
|---------------------------- | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|MERRIMACK BANCORP MHC        | * 3A3         | Merrimack Bancorp, MHC, Concord, New Hampshire to acquire 100% of the voting shares of Bow Mills Bank, Bow, New Hampshire pursuant to section 3(a)(3) of the BHC Act.                                                                                          | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                   | Not available
|Federal Register:            | Not available
|NEW ENGLAND BANCSHARES, INC. | * 4c8* 3A1    | New England Bancshares, Inc., Enfield, CT - section 3(a)(1)/4(c)(8) application to acquire First Valley Bancorp, Inc., Bristol, CT and its subsidiary bank, Valley Bank, Bristol, CT, and to retain Enfield Federal Savings and Loan Association, Enfield, CT. | Newspaper:02/22/2007Federal Register:02/26/2007      
|Newspaper:                   | 02/22/2007   
|Federal Register:            | 02/26/2007   

## 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
OFFIC E O F

SECRETAR Y O F TRANSPORTATIO N COMMONWEALT H O F PENNSYLVANI A DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N HARRISBURG , PENNSYLVANI A 1712 0

Jul y 26 , 201 0

Denni s DeVany , Chie f EA S an dDomesti c Analysi s Division , X-5 3 Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 c 5

Dear Mr . DeVany : I a mwritin g i n regard s t o th e Venang o Regiona l Airport' s participatio n in th e Essentia l Ai r Servic e Program . I t

i s ou r understandin g tha t

you r offic e i s currentl y reviewin g proposal s tha t woul d maintai n ai r

servic e at

thi s importan t

northwester n Pennsylvani aairport . Pennsylvani aha s lon g understoo dthat airport s are mor e than jus t aconvenien t

mod e o f transportation , tha t

th e airport s in Pennsylvani aar e ke y contributor s t o th e growt h an deconomi c prosperit y o f

th e entir e state . Venang o Regiona l Airport contribute s ove r

$ 9 millio n annuall y t o th e region' s economy . Recognizin g th e importanc e of thi s airport

t o th e aviatio n system , th e Commonwealt h an dth e loca l regio n hav e provide dove r $ 2 millio n in fundin g for airport improvemen t

project s ove r

th e las t te n years . A s aresult , w e ver y muc h support

acontinuatio n of

ai r servic e at

Venang o Regiona l Airport . Than k

yo u for you r consideratio n on thi s mos t importan t

matter . Sincerely,

Eri c G . Madde n Deputy Secretary fo r

Aviatio n