alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11. Activities of the Signatories under these Principles are subject to the availability of appropriated 

funds, personnel, and other resources, and to applicable laws, regulations, and policies to which they 

are subject. Nothing contained in these Principles requires any Signatory or regulatory authority to 

adopt any action that would be inconsistent with the sovereign jurisdictions or with the laws, 

regulations, and policy directives, existing or future, that are applicable. 

Signed at Mexico City this ih day of January 2017, in five originals, in the English and Spa 

languages. 

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OF THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 

~ SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

FOR THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY 

COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA: 

~ C. D':) / 

u 

NORMAN C. BAY 

CHAIRMAN 

FOR THE MINISTRY OF ENERGY 

MEXICAN STA S· 

FOR THE ENER Y REGULATORY COMMISSION 

OF THE NITED MEXICAN STATES: 

GUILLERMO IGNACIO GARCIA ALCOCER 

CHAIR COMMISSIONER 

FOR THE NATIONAL CENTER OF ENERGY 

CONTROL OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES: 

DIRECTOR GENERAL 

2
No. 57892.

#### H. P. Lambert Co., Inc., of La. *v.*United States,

protest 136932-K/12956 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 95, C. A. D. 535)the claim of the plaintiff \yas sustained..
# C_2017112EN.01001002.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

(Case C-145/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Validity - Regulation (EU) No 301/2012 - Headings 8703 and 8711 - Three-wheeled motor vehicle called ‘Spyder’))

(2017/C 112/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aramex Nederland BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that a three-wheeled vehicle, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, fitted with tyres manufactured for three-wheeled motorcycles but similar to those for motor cars, steered using a handlebar and fitted with a steering system based on the Ackermann principle, falls within heading 8703 of that nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

1

---
The.major impurity in the N1-(6-aminohexyl)-1,6-hexanediamine used is 1,6 hexanediamine.

Reaction of carbon disulfide and sodium hydroxide could yield, in the reaction scheme as stated,

Carbamodithioic Acid, N,N'-1,6-hexanediylbis-sodium salt. (CAS No.871-67-Ol.

Weeldenburg, J. G. (1928), The action of sodium hydroxide on carbon disulphide. Recl. Trav. Chim.

Pays-Bas, 47:496-512. doi: L}.tD2/recl.19280470606 shows that carbon disulfide is known to react

with an excess of alkali metal hydroxide to yield alkali metal trithiocarbonate and alkali metal carbonate.

Thus small excesses of carbon disulfide in the reaction sequence as described could potentially yield

small amounts of sodium trithiocarbonate and sodium carbonate. (CAS number 534-18-9 and 497-19-8

resepctively)
Credit Gateway Account Setup Form

Agency Instruction

Email completed form to CreditGateway@fiscal.treasury.gov

Allow five business days for processing new account

Account Service 

Request

New Account Change to Account Close Account

Agency Locator Code

Agency Name

Agency Address

Agency Contacts Name Phone Email

Primary Contact

Secondary Contact

Alternate Contact

Program Enrollment ACH Fedwire OLBP FedNow

CIR Cash Flow Name

(25-character limit)

Fiscal Service Personnel

Credit Gateway Customer Care Personnel

Time Received

Completed Date/Time Technician

Reviewing Technician

This email may contain Confidential 

Information V1.6 6/01/2023

Authorizing Official

Account Number
No. 57600.

#### American Express Company *v.*United States,

protest 201848-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, the certificate in question was admitted in evidence as exhibit 1 and the collector’s memorandum accompanying the protest as exhibit 2. The collector states in his memorandum that the protest was timely, that the certificate of registration was attached thereto, and that, in such circumstances, “Duty should therefore only be assessed on the value of the repairs.” In view of the evidence presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NO. 07-10-00062-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 11, 2011

JAMES F. BELYEU, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2008-420,618; HONORABLE BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS**

	Appellant, James F. Belyeu, filed his Notice of Appeal to appeal a judgment of conviction for the offense of aggravated robbery and sentence of 32 years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice entered against him in cause number 2008-420618 in the 364th District Court of Lubbock County, Texas. However, appellant has now filed a motion to dismiss his appeal.

	Because the motion meets the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and this Court has not delivered its decision prior to receiving it, we hereby grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal.   Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue.

								Mackey K. Hancock

									Justice

2

Do not publish.  

2
# C_2016048EN.01008602.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/86

---

Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Groupe Go Sport v OHIM — Design Go (GO SPORT)

(Case T-703/15)

(2016/C 048/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Groupe Go Sport (Sassenage, France) (represented by: G. Arbant and E. Henry-Mayer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Design Go Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘GO SPORT’ — Community trade mark application No 5 144 811

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2015 in Case R 569/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare admissible the Appeal R 569/2015-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible the Appeal R 569/2015-2;

| — | return the case to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

return the case to the Board of Appeal;

| — | order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 49(1) of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 49(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.

---
# C_2018005EN.01000901.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwaarden — Netherlands) — Jan Theodorus Arts v Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV

(Case C-227/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Single payment scheme - Veal farmer who concluded an integration contract - Contractual term under which the single payment is payable to the integration undertaking - Whether permissible))

(2018/C 005/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwaarden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jan Theodorus Arts

Applicant:

Defendant: Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as not precluding a contractual term under which the amount of aid which a veal farmer is entitled to claim under the single payment scheme is payable to an integration undertaking in the case where the transfer of that aid takes place within the context of reciprocal benefits and obligations negotiated between the parties to the contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 01.08.2016.

1

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 6806

ROBERT L. MURPHY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. FRANK B. BISHOP, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel , District Judge. ( 8:19

- cv - 03317

- GJH )

Submitted : July 20, 2021 Decided: July 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robert L. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert L. Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petition s are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from
latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S .C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition
states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutiona l right. Gonzalez , 565 U.S. at 140

- 41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Murphy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Before the Third Division,

September 19, 1946

No. 51313.

#### Protests 787923-G, etc., of A. Palazzola & Co. et al. (Cleveland, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 14 Filed 07/15/2004 Page 1 of 11

MARY DOE v. MATCH.COM, INC. et al Doc. 14

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 14 Filed 07/15/2004 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 14 Filed 07/15/2004 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 14 Filed 07/15/2004 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 14 Filed 07/15/2004 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 14 Filed 07/15/2004 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 14 Filed 07/15/2004 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 14 Filed 07/15/2004 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 14 Filed 07/15/2004 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 14 Filed 07/15/2004 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 14 Filed 07/15/2004 Page 11 of 11
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40391 Summary Calendar

SERGIO HIRAM ALVIDREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH W. WILLIAMS, Assistant Warden; CHARLES BELL; ERNEST H. GUTERREZ, JR.; STEVE SANGSTER; EMIL C. GARZA; BRUCE V. PETERSON; MICHAEL BAILEY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-96-CV-577

- - - - - - - - - - October 8, 1998 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Sergio Hiram Alvidrez, Texas prisoner no. 512255, appeals the district court’s order dismissing, as frivolous, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. After reviewing the record and Alvidrez’s arguments on appeal, we AFFIRM for the reasons given by the district court. See Alvidrez v. Williams , G-96-CV-577, (S.D. Tex., April 7, 1998).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAIME ALBERTO SANCHEZ,

Appellant,

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00093-CR

Appeal from the

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20060D01366)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. This 

decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
# Attachment A

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Significant Entities
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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. |

|   | /s/                Irene Kuan                                                 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Chief                Financial OfficerChief                Accounting Officer |
|   |                                                                          |
|   | October                13, 2006                                               |
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concluded this case is suitable for decision *

*

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS M. JAMES,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CHARLES L. RYAN; et al., 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-15918

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00510-GMS-JRI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2011**

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Thomas M. James, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a prison

policy banning sexually explicit materials violated his constitutional rights. We

FILED

JUN 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-15918

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We vacate

and remand.

James alleges that the prison policy banned sexually explicit publications

and all nudity in publications and photos. We are unable to say at this early stage

of the proceeding that James cannot state a claim for a First Amendment violation. 

See Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1205 n.7 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we

reverse and remand for further proceedings. 

We do not consider James’s arguments, including those related to retaliation

and amendments to the policy, raised for the first time on appeal. See Travelers

Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2008). 

James’s “Motion for Status” filed on October 14, 2010 is denied as moot.

James’s “Motion for leave of Court; Motion for enlargement of Time” filed

on October 14, 2010 is denied because it does not appear to relate to this appeal.

James shall bear his costs on appeal. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
CENTRALIZED RECEIVABLES SERVICE 

(CRS) 

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

Number 21-03

March 18, 2021

Collecting Tax ID Numbers (TINs)

When a debt becomes delinquent, CRS facilitates a seamless transfer of the debt to the Department of 

the Treasury’s Debt Management Service (DMS) for delinquent debt collection through Cross-servicing 

(CS). One of the collection tools CS uses to collect those debts is the Treasury Offset Program (TOP). 

TOP is a centralized offset process that intercepts federal and state payments from debtors who owe 

money to federal agencies. TOP relies on the taxpayer identifying number (TIN) to intercept these 

payments, therefore, it is necessary that all TINs – Social Security Number (SSN) and Employer 

Identification Number (EIN) – be accurate and valid.

CRS requests only valid TINs to forward with the case to Cross-servicing for delinquent debt collection. 

Do not enter repeating digits (e.g.: 999999999, 000000000, etc.), “pseudo-TINs”, placeholder TINs, or 

any other invalid SSN or EIN in the TIN field in CRS. 

REMINDER: CRS via Single-Sign On

• March 31, 2021 – All CRS User Names/passwords/tokens will be disabled. 

• April 1, 2021 – All agency users are required to use PIV or CAC to log into CRS. 

REMINDER: Timely Issue Resolution

An automated process to Cancel Cases and Resume Collection Actions on Halted Cases if no Issue 

response is received is going into effect July 2021.

All agencies are required to resolve CRS Issues in a timely manner. Failure to provide a timely response 

to Issues may result in cases being canceled or collection activities resuming for cases previously halted

in CRS.

For assistance responding to Issues, contact CRS Agency Relations by calling your Program’s IVR 

Number, and selecting Option 5, or by emailing crsagencyrelationshared@usbank.com.

<end>
# C_2016059EN.01003801.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/38

---

Action brought on 04 December 2015 — Commission v CINAR

(Case T-720/15)

(2016/C 059/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, A. Duron, lawyer, S. Delaude, agent, L. Di Paolo, agent, and J. Estrada de Solà, agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: CINAR Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | condemn the defendant to reimburse GBP 25 616 to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

condemn the defendant to reimburse GBP 25 616 to the applicant;

| — | condemn the defendant to pay interest on the principal amount of GBP 25 616 at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations on 1 December 2005 (2,09 %) plus one and a half percentage points, covering the period running from 6 December 2005 until the date of receipt of the funds to be reimbursed; and |
| --- | --- |

—

condemn the defendant to pay interest on the principal amount of GBP 25 616 at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations on 1 December 2005 (2,09 %) plus one and a half percentage points, covering the period running from 6 December 2005 until the date of receipt of the funds to be reimbursed; and

| — | order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations regarding the justification of costs claimed. As the financial contribution due to the defendant is less than the total amount paid by the applicant by means of an advance payment, the applicant contends that, under the contract, the defendant is liable for the sum due.

---