alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018005EN.01001101.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — HX v Council of the European Union

(Case C-423/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Restrictive measures against a person listed in an annex to a decision - Extension of the validity of that decision during proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Request to modify the application in the course of the hearing and not by a separate document - Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Bulgarian language version - Annulment by the General Court of the original decision placing the person concerned on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures - Expiry of the extension decision - Continuation of the interest in bringing legal proceedings in relation to the modification of the application))

(2018/C 005/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: HX (represented by: S. Koev, аdvokat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Gurov and S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part:

Operative part:

The Court (First Chamber) hereby:

| 1) | Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 June 2016, HX v Council (T-723/14, EU:T:2016:332); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 June 2016, HX v Council (T-723/14, EU:T:2016:332);

HX

Council

| 2) | Declares that there is no longer a need to adjudicate on the request to modify the application submitted by HX before the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Declares that there is no longer a need to adjudicate on the request to modify the application submitted by HX before the General Court of the European Union;

| 3) | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by HX both at first instance and in the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by HX both at first instance and in the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 350, 26.09.2016

1

---
1 

### Hutson, Nick

From: Frey, Nathan J. <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2015 5:51 PM To: Hutson, Nick; Harvey, Reid; Culligan, Kevin Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Grossman, Andrea Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO 12866 and 13563 -- 111(b) New-Mods preamble and reg text Attachments: SummaryofInteragencyCommentsUnderEO 12866_13563_111 (b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 Preamble_7 25 2015.docx; SummaryofInteragencyCommen tsUnderEO 12866_13563_111(b) New-Mods 2060-AQ91 RegText7 25 2015.docx



### Attached please find a summary of interagency comme nts under EO 12866 and 13563 on the latest version of the EPA draft final rule, Standards of Performance for Gree nhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Recons tructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Uni ts.

Thanks and please let me know if you have any quest ions.

Nathan
# C_2016475EN.01001003.xml

| 19.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 475/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 475/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 September 2016 — Julia Markmann and Others v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-479/16)

(2016/C 475/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Julia Markmann, Rene Markmann, Emilia Markmann, Jana Markmann

Applicants:

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Defendant:

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 11 October 2016.

---
Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 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 Concept Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Douek, Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:
  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/ Joseph DouekJoseph DouekPrincipal Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
  Date: September 22, 2009
  A signed original 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.
IPAC Operational Metrics for September 2023

- Sheet1
MSPhotography

Professional Photographic and Media Services

Addr: 33 Sea Ave

Quincy, MA, 02169-3135

Ph: +1-(857)-204-2448

Email: mindi@msaerial.com

Web: msaerial.com

33 Sea Ave, Quincy, MA

Docket Management System

U.S. Dept. of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

MSPhotography, November 6, 2015

Supplement C : Amendment to Exemption: #11333

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find in this document, an amendment to petition FAA-2015-0015-0001 submitted on January 7, 2015

and granted April, 16, 2015 as Exemption#: 11333. The purpose of this amendment is to declare our intent

to supplement our piloting team with one Mr. David G. Price. Mr. Price holds licenses as a commercial pilot

in airplane single engine with landing, and instrument airplane. He also hold certification as an advanced

ground instructor.

We also respectfully request an amendment to our exemption adding a DJI Inspire 1 and a DJI Phantom

3+ to our fleet of service sUAS devices. The condensed operating specifications are detailed below. Please

note that the reported metrics constitute ideal testing measurements. In daily operation these performance

metrics may never be reached due to safety or other decisions.

Manufacturer Details

Specification Value

Manufacturer DJI

Website www.dji.com

Contact (Ph) us.support@dji.com

Contact (Em) +1 (818) 235-0789
Supplement C : Amendment to Exemption: #11333

DJI Phantom 3 Operation Details

Specification Value

Weight (including battery and propellers) 1280 g

Diagonal size (including propellers) 590 mm

Max Ascent Speed 5 m/s

Max Descent Speed 3 m/s

Hover Accuracy V: +/- 0.1 m, H: +/- 1.5 m

Max Speed 16 m/s (ATTI mode, no wind)

Max Service Ceiling (Above Sea Level) 6000 m (limited to 120 m above takeoff point)

Operating Temperature 0

◦C to 40◦C

GPS Mode GPS/GLONASS

Operating Frequency 2.400 GHz-2.483 GHz

Max Distance Up to 5 km (unobstructed)

Battery 6000 mAh LiPo 2S

Max Flight Time ∼ 23 minutes

DJI Inspire 1 Operation Details

Specification Value

Weight (Battery Included) 2935 g

Diagonal Size 581 mm

Max Ascent Speed 5 m/s

Max Descent Speed 4 m/s

Hovering Accuracy (GPS mode) V: 0.5 m, H: 2.5 m

Max Speed 22 m/s

Max Service Ceiling (Above Sea Level) 4500 m (limited to 120m above takeoff point) 

Operating Temperature 0

◦C to 40◦C

GPS Mode GPS/GLONASS

Operating Frequency 2.400 GHz-2.483 GHz

Max Distance Up to 5 km (unobstructed)

Battery 5700 mAh LiPo 6S

Max Flight Time ∼ 18 minutes

Best,

Melinda Sokoloski

33 Sea Ave, Q uincy, MA 02169-3135

mindi@msaerial.com +1-(857)-204-2448
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 19, 2016

No. 04-16-00536-CV

BEXAR-MEDINA-ATASCOSA COUNTIES WATER CONTROL AND

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 (BMA),

Appellant / Cross-Appellee

v.

BANDERA COUNTY RIVER AUTHORITY AND GROUNDWATER DISTRICT,

Appellee / Cross-Appellant

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

 Trial Court No. CV-13-351

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This court has determined this appeal is appropriate for referral to alternative dispute

resolution (ADR). 4TH TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 2. All further communications with

this court by the parties regarding ADR shall be directed to the clerk of the court.

All parties are ORDERED to respond in writing by September 29, 2016 stating: (1) any

objection to mediation; and (2) whether the parties agree on the selection of a mediator and, if so,

the name and address of the mediator of their choice. 

If the parties agree to mediation and select a mediator, this court will issue an order

suspending all appellate deadlines for forty-five days to allow the parties to concentrate on the

scheduling and completion of the mediation process.

FILE COPY
Is it so ORDERED on September 19, 2016.

______________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on September 19, 2016.

 

______________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
**Exhibit 32.0****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     The certification set forth below is being submitted inconnection with the Quarterly Report of CSK Auto Corporation onForm 10-Q for the period ending May 1, 2005 (the“Report”) for the purpose of complying withRule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) andSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code.     Maynard L. Jenkins, the Chief Executive Officer and Don W.Watson, the Chief Financial Officer of CSK Auto Corporation,each certifies that to the best of their knowledge:          (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    result of operations of CSK Auto Corporation.     /s/ Maynard L. Jenkins       Maynard L. Jenkins     Chief Executive OfficerJune 10, 2005     /s/ Don W. Watson       Don W. Watson     Chief Financial OfficerJune 10, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIMINAL No. 05-44-1

: CIVIL ACTION No. 11-5077

v. :

:

:

WILLIAM SOSA :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2011, upon consideration of the Pro Se

Motion to Vacate Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. §2255 for William Sosa (Doc. No. 933) and

Government’s Response thereto (Doc. No. 938), and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying

Memorandum of this date, the Court denies Mr. Sosa’s request for appointment of counsel, denies

Mr. Sosa’s request for an evidentiary hearing and denies the motion. No certificate of appealability

shall issue and the Clerk shall close this file.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Gene E.K. Pratter 

GENE E.K. PRATTER

United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 78367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25120]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Notice of Closed Meeting

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Office of 
Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, 
CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Name of Committee: Safety and Occupational Health Study Section 
(SOHSS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
    Dates: February 6-7, 2024.
    Times: 11 a.m.-5 p.m., EST.
    Place: Teleconference.
    Agenda: The meeting will convene to address matters related to the 
conduct of Study Section business and for the Study Section to consider 
safety and occupational health-related grant applications.
    For Further Information Contact: Michael Goldcamp, Ph.D., 
Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Programs, National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 
26506. Telephone: (304) 285-5951; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d09d97bfbcb4b3b1bda090b3b4b3feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="460b01292a2225272b360625222568212930">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of 
the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register 
notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee 
management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2023-25120 Filed 11-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 56956.

#### David Grad Co. and F. C. Gerlach & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 141886-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of jewelry in chief value of artificial flowers the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Coro, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 154, C. A. D. 478), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2018161EN.01004901.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2018 — Argyraki v Commission

(Case T-734/16) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Calculation of years - Taking into account periods of service completed as a member of the auxiliary staff - Conditions - Legal basis))

(2018/C 161/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vassilia Argyraki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, G. Berscheid, G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, then G. Berscheid, G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) dated 29 January 2016 by which the latter refused the applicant’s request to have the periods of service she supplied as a member of the auxiliary staff validated as periods completed as a member of the temporary staff in the calculation of her pension rights.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) dated 29 January 2016 by which the latter refused Ms Vassilia Argyraki’s request to have the periods of service she supplied as a member of the auxiliary staff validated as periods completed as a member of the temporary staff in the calculation of her pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) dated 29 January 2016 by which the latter refused Ms Vassilia Argyraki’s request to have the periods of service she supplied as a member of the auxiliary staff validated as periods completed as a member of the temporary staff in the calculation of her pension rights;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

1

---
Cyhalofop-butyl Focus Meeting July 11, 2014 10:00-11:00 am, Potomac Yards South- 9100 M1 c kel(c 12CLh'-l d 1-e

**1)o ~**  **\)~**

..------, 1

**~** i I **(ct~Q{.Z .**  -t-t e Y\f € 

### vQ



# ~ **~--** 

# h 1-<--j

**'lGe-~ ShcM-~\e~**  **~J)l ~**  

### u

# ~'1- 

# 3o **~"So-­**



# /J;Jf!(h/J(,f<{ 

### N~6~ 

## ~~~ **M~~** 

# f<a.{ OU-t 

# Pr **~**


# 9r~ **~** Affiliation/Phone Number 

### t--W t03 34t **~to(p** 

### oP?/tteD (ro 3 ) 3<'5 - 535\ J) CA.J 

## f\rvS'· (\ e / Ll.c

**~** j 3 I ' 7- j_3 (] -4 b '?2 0//( 

## E F t;)J 7o J- 

### fa v_t- 

### ~o 2- / 

# 1 £f£t:> 103 3 

### os- **~'1** (



### P~D 

### 7 o!J 3o 0_ 

### gor 

## 1 

# VQo . . cf?ff/8ElfD

**~3 ?2)'6'**  **'bo't9** Arwn r " " 

# ~l.::r-3YI-t 3J-49 D(n J , 

# ·v . v cl **~L.X/-1** 

### b6W ( {)\A_ p

**)**



### tPPr


## /I~ 

# co **c~** 

# pMv-L\ 

# a A- J 

## T315Fro
**c~ ph~)**  

### Ef A ) 

## Pf-0 ) I D 3 - 3 

### Lf 7 - 0 l 

### 03
U 

~marcus -lJ construction 

Petitioner: 

Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act and Part 11.81 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

Marcus Construction 

Dan O'Meara, Pilot 

2580 Highway 12 East 

Willmar, MN 56201 

February 3, 2016 

Regarding Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 C.F.R. Parts 11.81, 

Marcus Construction hereby applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations to 

allow commercial operation of its small, unmanned aircraft for commercial photography and 

videography. All operations shall be conducted in compliance with the limitations outlined by the 

FAA as required by Section 333. 

1. Sections from which exemptions are sou&ht 

a. 14 CFR Part 21, subpart H 

b. 14 CFR Part 91: 

a. 91.103(b)(2) 

b. 91.105 

c. 91.109 

d. 91.119 

e. 91.121 

f. 91.151 

g. 91.405 

h. 91.407 

i. 91.409 

j. 91.417 

2. Relief SoJJ&ht 

1. Marcus Construction wishes to operate small Unmanned Aircraft Systems for the purpose of 

producing commercial photography and videography. 
d. All flight operations will comply with the following: 

a. The manufacturers' user manuals. 

b. Information made available by the FAA and other resources including (but not 

limited to) ht!;J,l: l/www.lmowbeforeyoufly.org and www.modelajrcraft.org 

c. Conducted in VMC conditions during daylight hours. 

d. PIC will maintain VLOS at all times. 

e. Pre-flight inspections (including ground control station, if any) and safety risk 

assessments will be conducted prior to each flight. 

f. Flight altitudes will remain below 400 feet above ground level. 

g. Flight ground speeds will not exceed SO knots. 

h. Not intrude into Class B, CorD airspace, or published approach, SID or STAR, or 

take place within 5 nautical miles of an airport 

i. Not be made near persons as required in 14 CFR 91.119 and not over persons 

on the ground without their prior permission. 

j. Each flight will be logged in both the PIC's logbook 

k. Not exceed 75% of the battery or fuel capacity of the aircraft, or 30 minutes, 

whichever occurs first 

I. Any applicable local FSDO requirements. 

m. All other applicable regulations concerned with the operation of aircraft. 

e. Aircraft will use FCC compliant 2.4 GHz for command & control of the aircraft with welldefined and tested lost link procedures. 

Sincerely, 

Dan O'Meara 

Pilot, Marcus Construction
No. P68/214.

protests 67/7415, etc. (New York).

#### Novelty Import Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist of so-called “miniature hunting knives” similar in all material respects to those the subject of *M. Pressner & Co.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 489, C.D. 2686), and that the items of merchandise marked “B” covered by the foregoing protests consist of miniature pocketknives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Paul E. Sernau, Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 514, Abstract 65737), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 59476.

protests 248167-K, etc. (Providence).

#### Leonard Levin Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified, *supra,*for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 30 percent under said paragraph, as modified, *supra,*as imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15

- 1969 Filed January 27, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF B.F., C.P. and I.P. Minor Children, KIMBERLY S. AYOTTE, Guardian Ad Litem, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher , District Associate Judge.

The guardian ad litem appeals from a permanency order. AFFIRMED.

Kimberly S. Ayotte of Youth Law Center, att orney and guardian ad litem, appellant. Jami J. Hagemeier of Williams & Hagemeier, P.L.C., Des Moines, for
mother. Marshall Orsini of Carr & Wright, P.L.C., Des Moines, for father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bruce K empkes, Assist ant Attorney General, for State

.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.2

MCDONALD, Judge. The guardian ad litem appeals from the permanency order extending permanency for six months pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.104(2 )(b) (2013). She contends the court erred in finding the children will be able to return to the care of either parent after the six

- month extension and in not directing the county attorney to seek termination of parental rights. The guardian ad litem also contends additional time to pursue reunification is not in the best interest of the
children. Our review of permanency orders is de novo. See In re A.T. , 799 N.W.2d 148, 150

- 51. We give weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court, but are not bound by them. Id. Under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b), the court may enter an order continuing placement of the children upon a finding the need for the children’s removal will no longer exist at the end of the additional six

- month period. The

c ourt must “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral changes which comprise the basis for the determination” the need for removal will no longer exist at the end the extension. Id. The court made the required findings and set for th in detail the specific factors, conditions, and behavioral changes necessary for each parent to resume custody at the end of the six

month period

. Although cases where the statutory time for reunification has passed are viewed with a sense of urgency, see In re C.B. , 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 (Iowa 2000), the guardian ad litem’s assertion “the maximum time a parent can work towards reunification is 18 months” is incorrect. The court did not err in3

extending permanency in this case , even though the children h ad been out of the mother’s care for more than two years. For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the challenged permanency
order.
AFFIRMED.