alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019288EN.01004401.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — NRW. Bank v SRB

(Case T-466/16) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the ex ante contribution for 2016 - Time limit for bringing an action - Delay - Article 76 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 288/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: NRW. Bank (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented initially by: A. Behrens, J. Kraayvanger and J. Seitz, and subsequently by J. Seitz and D. Flore, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, secondly, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders NRW. Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders NRW. Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB);

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

---
II 

Calendar No. 422 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1337 

[Report No. 115–254] 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to make certain strategic energy 

infrastructure projects eligible for certain loan guarantees, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2017 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself, Mrs. CAPITO, and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

MAY 22, 2018 

Reported by Ms. MURKOWSKI, with an amendment 

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to make certain 

strategic energy infrastructure projects eligible for certain loan guarantees, 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, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1337 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Capitalizing on Amer3 ican Storage Potential Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STRATEGIC ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. 

5 Section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

6 U.S.C. 16513) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)— 

8 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘in sub9 section (d))’’ and inserting ‘‘described in sub10 section (d) and strategic energy infrastructure 

11 meeting the criteria described in subsection 

12 (f))’’; and 

13 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(11) Strategic energy infrastructure meeting 

15 the criteria described in subsection (f).’’; and 

16 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(f) STRATEGIC ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE

18 PROJECTS.—The Secretary may make guarantees under 

19 this section for any strategic energy infrastructure project 

20 that is a regional project— 

21 ‘‘(1) that supports a more effective energy mar22 ket performance due to the scale of the project, such 

23 as a project with the capacity to store and distribute 

24 greater than 100,000 barrels per day of hydrocarbon 

25 feedstock with a minimum gross heating value of 

26 1,700 Btu per standard cubic foot; and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1337 RS

1 ‘‘(2) with the potential to significantly con2 tribute to the economic resilience of the region in 

3 which the project is located.’’. which the project is lo4 cated. 

5 ‘‘(g) NATIONAL SECURITY REVIEW.—Before making a 

6 guarantee for a project under this section, the Secretary 

7 shall certify that the guarantee is in the national interest 

8 and will not harm the national security of the United 

9 States, in accordance with Department of Energy Order 

10 142.5 (relating to the Committee on Foreign Investment in 

11 the United States) (or a successor order).’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 422 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1337 

[Report No. 115–254] 

A BILL 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to make 

purposes. eligible for certain loan guarantees, and for other certain strategic energy infrastructure projects 

MAY 22, 2018 

Reported with an amendment 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2017022EN.01006004.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/60

---

Order of the General Court of 14 November 2016 — Dulière v Commission

(Case T-503/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 022/83)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-15/13 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

215 Deposit Ticket Report

From Date: 02/26/2019

Generated: 02/26/2019 06:50:34 AM EST

To Date: 02/26/2019

215 - Deposit Ticket

OTC Endpoint:2018000201 Deposit Ticket No: 606442 Settlement Date:02/26/2019 Voucher Date: 02/25/2019

Fiscal Agent:FRB Cleveland

Cashier ID Transaction Date Summary Count Summary Amount

215 - Detail

OTC Endpoint:2018000201 Description: Credit Accounting Branch ALC+2: 2018000201

02/25/2019 96 $961,878.17

Total ALC: 2018000201 96 $961,878.17

Page 1 of 2

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED











9







(b) (6)

(b) (6)
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

215 Deposit Ticket Report

From Date: 02/26/2019

Generated: 02/26/2019 06:50:34 AM EST

To Date: 02/26/2019

215 - Summary

Summary number of count: 96

Summary of total amount: $961,878.17

Page 2 of 2

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED
# C_2018134EN.01000901.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-572/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a - Decision 2011/278/EU - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances - Period 2013-2020 - Allocation application - Incorrect data - Correction - Mandatory time limit))

(2018/C 134/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, and Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down, for the submission of an application for free allocation of emission allowances for the period 2013-2020, a mandatory time limit after which the applicant has no means of correcting or supplementing its application, since that time limit is not liable to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the submission of such an application.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.

1

---
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 2 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 3 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 4 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 5 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 6 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 7 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 8 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 9 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 10 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 11 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 12 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 13 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 14 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 15 of 16
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 83 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 16 of 16
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7263
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY HOOTEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-97-109, CA-00-50) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Hooten, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Hooten seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1)‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Hooten has not satisfied either standard. SeeUnited States v. Hooten , Nos. CR-97-109; CA00-50 (W.D.N.C. July 18, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2018311EN.01001301.xml

| 3.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Consejo Regulador del Cava v EUIPO — Cave de Tain L’Hermitage, union des propriétaires (CAVE DE TAIN)

(Case T-774/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative EU trade mark CAVE DE TAIN - Earlier designation of origin ‘CAVA’ - Concept of ‘evocation’ of a protected designation of origin - Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013))

(2018/C 311/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Consejo Regulador del Cava (Villafranca del Penedès, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cave de Tain L’Hermitage (Tain l’Hermitage, France) (represented by J.-P. Stouls, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 (Case R 980/2015-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Consejo Regulador del Cava and Cave de Tain L’Hermitage, union des propriétaires.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Consejo Regulador del Cava to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Consejo Regulador del Cava to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99-30



                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, David E. Meador, Manager and Chief Executive Officer of The Detroit Edison
Securitization Funding LLC (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
     December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

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



Date:         March 20, 2003                    /s/ DAVID E. MEADOR
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                  David E. Meador
                                      Manager and Chief Executive Officer of
                                   The Detroit Edison Securitization Funding LLC
# C_2017022EN.01000201.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 September 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Juraj Sokáč

(Case C-497/16)

(2017/C 022/02)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Juraj Sokáč

Question referred

Question referred

Can medicinal products as defined in Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, which contain ‘scheduled substances’ as laid down by Regulation (EU) No 273/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, be regarded as excluded, on the basis of Article 2(a) of that regulation, from the scope of the Regulation in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14, even after amendment of that provision by Regulation No 1258/2013 (3) and in view of the fact that Article 2(a) of Regulation No 111/2005 (4) as amended by Regulation No 1259/2013 (5) brings medicinal products containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine within the system laid down by Regulation No 111/2005?

1

2

3

4

5

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

1

(2)  OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ 2013 L 330, p. 21.

3

(4)  OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1.

4

(5)  OJ 2013 L 330, p. 30.

5

---
# C_2019044EN.01002402.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Janssen-Cases v Commission

(Case T-688/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Commission Mediator - Competent appointing authority - Delegation of powers - Procedure - Consultation of the Staff Committee - Liability))

(2019/C 44/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mercedes Janssen-Cases (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, and, subsequently, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, and, subsequently, G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision of 15 June 2016 appointing W as the Commission Mediator and the note of 16 June 2016 by which the Commission informed the applicant of the result of the selection procedure and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 15 June 2016 appointing W as the Commission Mediator and the note of 16 June 2016 by which the Commission informed Ms Mercedes Janssen-Cases of the result of the selection procedure for that post; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 15 June 2016 appointing W as the Commission Mediator and the note of 16 June 2016 by which the Commission informed Ms Mercedes Janssen-Cases of the result of the selection procedure for that post;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

---

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.

---
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 9, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 87 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-31, CP2024-31.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-24722 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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 FullCircle Registry, Inc. a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Isaac Boutwell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


                                                  /s/Isaac Boutwell
                                                   ----------------
                                                  Isaac Boutwell
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
Date: April 14, 2004
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A0 73 4 . MATHI S v . THE STATE.

On Decem

b e r 5
, 2 0 1 8
, t h i s Co u rt g ran t ed t h e ap p el l an t an ex t en s io n o f t i m e

u n t i l J an u ary 4
, 2 01 9
, i n w h ich t o fi l e an en u m erat i o n o f er r o rs an d a b ri ef i n t h i s

cas e. As o f t h e d at e o f t h i s o rd er, t h e ap p el l an t ’ s b ri ef an d en u m erat i o n of erro rs s t i l l
h av e n o t b een fi l ed

. Acco rd i ng l y , t h i s a p p e al is h ereb y DISM ISSED. See Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 3 (a).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. January 25, 2019

01/25/2019