alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

# AGENCY:

Justice Management Division, Department of Justice.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Justice Management Division (JMD), Department of Justice (DOJ) is publishing this notice to advise                               ( print page 75331)                            the public of the availability of its FY 2021 Service Contracts Inventory and Inventory Supplement.                    

# ADDRESSES:

*https://www.justice.gov/​jmd/​service-contract-inventory.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Tara M. Jamison, Office of Acquisition Management, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; Phone: 202-616-3754; Email:                         *Tara.Jamison@usdoj.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The inventory includes service contract actions over $25,000 that were awarded in fiscal year (FY) 2020. Additionally, the inventory supplement includes information collected from contractors on the amount invoiced and direct labor hours expended for covered service contracts. The Department of Justice analyzes this data for the purpose of determining whether its contract labor is being used in an effective and appropriate manner and if the mix of federal employees and contractors in the agency is effectively balanced. The inventory and supplement do not include contractor proprietary or sensitive information.

*Authority:*                     Section 743 of Division C of the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 111-117.                

Dated: October 27, 2023.

Darwin Arceo,

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2023-24164 Filed 11-1-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION 

:

v. :

:

FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., et al. : No. 04-3509 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of March 2012, the following summary judgment motions

are denied in that each one involves triable issues: 

C “Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant, Travelers Casualty & Surety

Company (f/k/a The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and Incorrectly

Designated in the Complaint as ‘St. Paul Travelers’” (doc. no. 338). 

C “Sentry Insurance, a Mutual Company’s, Motion for Summary Judgment as

to Application of Asbestos Exclusion” (doc. no. 339).

C “AIU Insurance Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding

1985-1986 Excess Policy” (doc. no. 340). 

C “Lexington Insurance Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Regarding 1983 to 1984 Excess Policy” (doc. no. 341). 

C “Motion for Summary Judgment of Continental Insurance Company, as

Successor-In-Interest to Certain Policies Issued by Harbor Insurance

Company” (doc. no. 342 (sealed)). 

C “Defendant Westchester Fire Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary

Judgment Concerning the Application of Its Asbestos Exclusions to the

Underlying Asbestos Claims” (doc. no. 343 (sealed)). 

C “Defendant Republic Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Concerning the Application of Its Asbestos Exclusions to the Underlying

Asbestos Claims” (doc. no. 344 (sealed)). 

Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 429 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 2
2

C “Defendant Government Employees Insurance Company’s Motion for

Summary Judgment Concerning the Application of the Asbestos Exclusions

to the Underlying Asbestos Claims” (doc no. 345 (sealed)). 

C “Defendant Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First State Insurance

Company, Westport Insurance Company, and Lexington Insurance Company’s

Motion for Summary Judgment on the Ground That Asbestos Exclusions Bar

Coverage” (doc. nos. 347-350 (sealed)). 

As to defendants’ affirmative defenses that the insurance policy exclusions are clear

and unambiguous and preclude coverage for the underlying asbestos-related actions against

plaintiff, these rulings are reserved until trial. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Edmund V. Ludwig 

Edmund V. Ludwig, J. 

 

Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 429 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 2
No. 60416.

protest 253190-K (New York).

#### Sandoz Chemical Works *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Axelan, which product is not obtained from any oil, fat, or fatty acid, but is derived from castor oil, which is not covered by the statute, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.27
​
Letter Agreement Counter Parties
 
	

	

	

	

	


	Name
	 
	Title
	 
	Date Signed

	Heilmann, P.
	 ​
	SVP, Chief Legal Officer
	 ​
	October 23, 2014

	Lauer, J.
	​
	SVP, Ocean Services
	​
	April 6, 2015

	Stuck, K.
	​
	Vice President and Controller
	​
	May 11, 2018

	Dreyfus, B.
	​
	Senior Vice President 
	​
	February 27, 2020

	Cerocke, G.
	​
	Senior Vice President
	​
	February 25, 2021

	Gao, Q.
	​
	Senior Vice President
	​
	February 25, 2021

	Kinney, R.
	​
	Senior Vice President
	​
	February 27, 2020

	Rascon, L.
	​
	Senior Vice President
	​
	February 25, 2021

	Scott, C.
	​
	Senior Vice President
	​
	February 25, 2021

	Sullivan, J.
	​
	Senior Vice President
	​
	February 27, 2020



​
Case 2:02-mc-00172-CRW Document 3 Filed 01/19/2006 Page 1 of 1
# C_2021206EN.01000501.xml

| 31.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC v European Commission

(Case C-611/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Pharmaceutical products - Market for antidepressants (citalopram) - Settlement agreements relating to disputes concerning process patents concluded by a manufacturer of originator medicines who is the holder of those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Rights of the defence - Reasonable time - Loss of documents due to the passage of time - General duty of care - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Second subparagraph of Article 23(2) - Maximum amount of the fine - Taking into account the business year preceding that in which the European Commission’s decision was adopted - Last full year of normal economic activity)

(2021/C 206/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS, Alpharma LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC (represented by: D.W. Hull, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, B. Rayment and D. Bailey, Barristers, G. Peretz QC, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and J. Holmes QC, and subsequently D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS and Alpharma LLC to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS and Alpharma LLC to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---
# C_2018063EN.01000201.xml

| 19.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/2

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Eurallumina SpA v Italian Republic, European Commission

(Case C-323/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - State aid - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Intervention - Cross-appeal - Admissibility - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Principle of presumption of the legality and of the effet utile of acts of the institutions - Principle lex specialis derogat legi generali - Selective nature of the measure - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(ii) - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons))

(2018/C 063/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Eurallumina SpA (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, L. Philippou and A. Stratakis, Solicitors)

Appellant:

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Grasso, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission, (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

| 2. | Orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs relating to the main appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eurallumina SpA to pay the costs relating to the main appeal.

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.

| 4. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

1

---
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1044 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure equal access 

of Medicare beneficiaries to community pharmacies in underserved areas 

as network pharmacies under Medicare prescription drug coverage, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2017 

Mrs. CAPITO (for herself, Mr. BROWN, Mr. COTTON, and Mr. MANCHIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure 

equal access of Medicare beneficiaries to community 

pharmacies in underserved areas as network pharmacies 

under Medicare prescription drug coverage, and for other 

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 ‘‘Ensuring Seniors Ac5 cess to Local Pharmacies Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1044 IS

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWING ANY STATE BOARD CERTIFIED PHAR2 MACY SERVING AN UNDERSERVED AREA TO 

3 BECOME A NETWORK PHARMACY UNDER 

4 MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–4(b)(1)(B) of the 

6 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–104(b)(1)(B)) is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘DISCOUNTS ALLOWED FOR

9 NETWORK PHARMACIES.—For’’ and inserting the 

10 following: ‘‘DISCOUNTS ALLOWED FOR NETWORK

11 PHARMACIES.— 

12 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For’’; and 

13 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

14 clause: 

15 ‘‘(ii) INCLUSION OF PHARMACIES LO16 CATED IN UNDERSERVED AREAS IN NET17 WORKS.—In the case of a prescription 

18 drug plan that has, in its network of phar19 macies, one or more pharmacies located in 

20 a health professional shortage area (as de21 fined in section 332(a)(1)(A) of the Public 

22 Health Service Act), in a medically under23 served area (according to a designation 

24 under section 330(b)(3)(A) of the Public 

25 Health Service Act), or among a medically 

26 underserved population (as defined in such 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1044 IS

1 section 330(b)(3)(A) of such Act), and 

2 that provides a reduction in coinsurance or 

3 copayments described in clause (i) for cov4 ered part D drugs dispensed through such 

5 pharmacies, such plan shall extend to any 

6 pharmacy located in such area or among 

7 such population the option to be an in-net8 work pharmacy with respect to such plan 

9 under terms and conditions (including the 

10 reductions described in clause (i)) com11 parable to those the plan has agreed upon 

12 with other in-network pharmacies located 

13 in such area or among such population.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to plan years beginning on or after 

16 January 1, 2018. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            2102
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    30613
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (9155)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 31659
<PP&E>                                            7542
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (4830)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   61746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            31302
<BONDS>                                        (176813)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (147869)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     61746
<SALES>                                          84545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 84545
<CGS>                                            15927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    62907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   244
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  8018
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               13634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8248
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8248
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8248
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 57890.

#### Trans Ocean Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 178095-K/14050 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is composed of rush and is not of grass nor of rice straw; that merchandise of like character is now being assessed at 20 percent under said paragraph 1201, as modified, *supra;*and that the termination of the said General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with respect to concessions therein initially negotiated with China (T. D. 52587), insofar as said paragraph 1021 is concerned, related only to floor coverings of grass or of rice straw. Upon the agreed statement of facts, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2016156EN.01002102.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-28/16)

(2016/C 156/30)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM)

Appellant:

Respondent: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | May a holding company which plays an active role in the management of certain affairs of its subsidiaries, or of the group of companies as a whole, but which does not pass on to its subsidiaries the cost of the services carried out in relation to its active holding activity or the corresponding VAT be regarded as a taxable person for the purpose of VAT in respect of those services? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May a holding company which plays an active role in the management of certain affairs of its subsidiaries, or of the group of companies as a whole, but which does not pass on to its subsidiaries the cost of the services carried out in relation to its active holding activity or the corresponding VAT be regarded as a taxable person for the purpose of VAT in respect of those services?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used by it which are directly related to the taxed economic activity of some of its subsidiaries, and if so in what way? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used by it which are directly related to the taxed economic activity of some of its subsidiaries, and if so in what way?

| 3. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used which are in the interest of the group of companies as a whole, and if so in what way? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used which are in the interest of the group of companies as a whole, and if so in what way?

| 4. | Do the answers to be given to the above question differ if the active holding company bills its subsidiaries in respect of the abovementioned services as intermediary services, and if so to what extent? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Do the answers to be given to the above question differ if the active holding company bills its subsidiaries in respect of the abovementioned services as intermediary services, and if so to what extent?

---
# C_2020297EN.01000201.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE v European Commission

(Case C-378/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) and of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) - MARE, Senior and ECRN projects - Commission decision to recover sums unduly paid - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature)

(2020/C 297/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (represented by: A. D’Amico and S. Famiani, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by F. Moro, S. Delaude and L. Di Paolo, and subsequently by F. Moro and S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and by D. Gullo, avvocato)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 April 2016, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission (T-539/13, not published, EU:T:2016:235); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 21 April 2016, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission (T-539/13, not published, EU:T:2016:235);

| 2. | Refers Case T-539/13 back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers Case T-539/13 back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.

---
# C_2018072EN.01002001.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner

(Case C-434/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘personal data’ - Written answers submitted by a candidate in a professional examination - Examiner’s comments with respect to those answers - Article 12(a) and (b) - Extent of the data subject’s rights to access and rectification))

(2018/C 072/25)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Nowak

Applicant:

Defendant: Data Protection Commissioner

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the written answers submitted by a candidate at a professional examination and any comments made by an examiner with respect to those answers constitute personal data, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

1

---