alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007183EN.01004303.xml

| 4.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/43

---

Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Tiralongo v Commission

(Case F-55/07)

(2007/C 183/85)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Giuseppe Tiralongo (Ladispoli, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and S. Frazzani, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare the present action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible;

| — | order the Commission to provide the information and documents relating to the initial engagement of Ms X and to the successive extensions of her contract within the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and order Ms X to testify as a witness; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to provide the information and documents relating to the initial engagement of Ms X and to the successive extensions of her contract within the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and order Ms X to testify as a witness;

| — | adopt all measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry necessary for the purpose of assessing the infringement by the Commission of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt all measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry necessary for the purpose of assessing the infringement by the Commission of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination;

| — | order the Commission to pay 460 000 EUR, or any other amount which the Tribunal may consider to be fair and equitable, by way of compensation for the material damage caused to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay 460 000 EUR, or any other amount which the Tribunal may consider to be fair and equitable, by way of compensation for the material damage caused to the applicant;

| — | order the Commission to pay 100 000 EUR, or any other amount which the Tribunal may consider to be fair and equitable, by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay 100 000 EUR, or any other amount which the Tribunal may consider to be fair and equitable, by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a member of the temporary staff of OLAF up to 30 April 2005, seeks to recover compensation in respect of the damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of a series of unlawful acts allegedly committed by the Commission in connection with the extension of his contract. Those unlawful acts ostensibly concern in particular: (i) breach of the applicable legal rules and of the case-law relating to employment in the public service; (ii) infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations; (iii) infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

---
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

      ( print page 15698)    
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting. 

*Time and Date:*                         12 p.m.-4 p.m., May 17, 2007 (Closed).                     

*Place:*                         Teleconference.                     

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                     

*Matters To Be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of “The Immune Response to a Modified Dosing Schedule of the Quadrivalent HPV Vaccine,” PEP 2007-R-03.                     

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         Christine J. Morrison, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of the Chief Science Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop D-72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone (404) 639-3098.                     

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                     

Dated: March 26, 2007. 

Elaine L. Baker, 

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 [FR Doc. E7-6036 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 894 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for limitations on copayments for contraception furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2023 

Ms. BROWNLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for limitations on copayments for contraception furnished by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 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 ‘‘Equal Access to Con5 traception for Veterans Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON COPAYMENTS FOR CONTRACEP7 TION. 

8 Section 1722A(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, 

9 is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 894 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘to pay’’ and all that follows 

2 through the period and inserting ‘‘to pay—’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub4 paragraphs: 

5 ‘‘(A) an amount in excess of the cost to the 

6 Secretary for medication described in paragraph (1); 

7 or 

8 ‘‘(B) an amount for any contraceptive item for 

9 which coverage under health insurance coverage is 

10 required without the imposition of any cost-sharing 

11 requirement pursuant to section 2713(a)(4) of the 

12 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg– 

13 13(a)(4)).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### United States *v.*Remington Rand, Inc.

No. 7354.

Invoices dated Montreal, Canada, January 9, 1947, etc.

Certified January 10, 1947, etc.

Entered at Bridgeport, Conn., January 13, 1947, etc.

Entry No. 274, etc.

(Decided August 12, 1947)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Laweence, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement are submitted on the following stipulation:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the cost of manufacturing and producing the black and ivory dual cases and covers for electric shavers, in accordance with the provisions of Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, at a time preceding the date of exportation, which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production of merchandise, such as or similar to the particular merchandise under consideration in the usual course of business, is as follows:

> Black and ivory dual cases and covers for electric shavers:

> (a) Article 1111, $144 per thousand, net packed.

> (b) Article 1112, .$174 per thousand, net packed.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption, nor for export to the United States, nor was such merchandise freely offered for sale, packed ready for delivery in the principal market of the United States at the time of exportation of the imported merchandise, and the cases are submitted on this stipulation.

On the established facts, I find the value of the involved merchandise as hereinafter described and which is covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule which is marked “A” and incorporated herein, based upon the cost of production as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be as follows:

> Black and ivory dual cases and covers for electric shavers:

> (a) Article 1111, $144 per thousand, net packed.

> (b) Article 1112, $174 per thousand, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2007140EN.01002401.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 May 2007 — IPK International World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission

(Case T-297/05 R)

(Interim measures - Article 256 EC - Subject-matter of the application - Admissibility - Lack of urgency)

(2007/C 140/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Pitschas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima, acting as Agent, and C. Arhold, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C (2006) 6452 of 4 December 2006 relating to recovery of the sum of EUR 318 000 received by the applicant as an advance in respect of the Ecodata project.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed;

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
** **

**Exhibit 15.2**

 

November 29, 2019

 

**ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd.**

Section A, Building 3

Dian Tong Creative Square

No. 7 Jiuxianqiao North Road

Chaoyang District

Beijing, 100015

People’s Republic of China

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

We consent to the reference to our firm name and the summaryof our opinion under the headings “Item 3.D.—Risk Factors”, “Item 4.B. —Business Overview—Regulation”, “Item 4.C.—Business Overview—Organizational Structure” and “Item 10.E.—Taxation” in ChinaCacheInternational Holdings Ltd.’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2018, which will be filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “**SEC**”) on or around April 30, 2019 (the “**Annual Report**”),and further consent to the incorporation by reference of the summaries of our opinions under these captions into ChinaCache InternationalHoldings Ltd.’s registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-172962) pertaining to the 2007, 2008 and 2010 Share IncentivePlans of ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. (the “Group”), the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-176751)pertaining to the 2011 Share Incentive Plan of the Group and the registration statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-195192). We also consentto the filing with the SEC of this consent letter as an exhibit to the Annual Report.

 

In providing these consents, we do not thereby admit that weare in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933 or the Rules and Regulationsof the SEC promulgated thereunder.
#### Batson *v.*Pearl River County.

(In Banc.

June 14, 1948.)

[35 So. (2d) 712.

No. 36757.]

On Suggestion of Error.

For original memorandum opinion see 35 So. (2d) 72.

Jones & Ray, of Jackson, and Ben Stevens, of Hattiesburg, for appellee.

*883J. M. Morse, of Poplarville, for appellee.

*884Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant offered to prove and we will concede, for the purposes of this case, did prove that the assessor and board of supervisors of the county placed all cut-over lands in the county, except those in Pearl River swamp, at an arbitrary assessment value of $2.50 per acre, and that the greater area of all the taxable lands was in the said cut-over class assessed at $2.50 per acre; and we may concede that appellant’s land in the said $2.50 class, as well as that the assessor and board knew it, was not worth on an average as much as the average of other lands in that class, but it must be stated at the same time that appellant’s land was worth, according to the evidence in the case, in actual value more than the $2.50 per acre at which it was assessed.

*885Appellant’s complaint is then that the assessor and board of upervisors knowingly and intentionally placed his land arbitrarily in said $2.50 class, knowing that his land was not worth as much as the average of other land in said class and thereby worked an unconstitutional discrimination against him. In fact, appellant attempted to have the entire essessment roll of all the lands in the county received in evidence to emphasize his point.

Appellant has not pointed to any case or cases under, our statute, Section 1196, Code 1942, allowing appeals from assessment, which would permit the circut court on such an appeal to go into the broad question here prescribed by appellant. The farthest towards it, so far as we can at the present find, would appear to be that allowed in Redmond v. City of Jackson, 143 Miss. 114, 108 So. 444. Such a question was not involved in Knox v. L. N. Dantzler Lbr. Co., 148 Miss. 834, 114 So. 873, and the language therein used is to be interpreted in the light of the facts with which that case dealt. In Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. Stewart, 5 Cir., 46 F (2d) 910, arising in this same county, the Court seems to have recognized that relief of a character such as here mentioned could not be afforded in a proceeding by appeal, and thereupon sustained a bill in equity.

Appellant having failed to show us that the stated questions could be reviewed on an appeal to the circuit court, and for the reason that the evidence showed that appellant’s land was not assessed at more than its true value, we simply affirmed without an opinion, and for the same reason we overrule the suggestion of error.

But in what we have above said we do not finally foreclose the stated point. We are saying only that up to the present time we have not been shown that the broad issue raised by appellant could be adjucated on a statutory appeal.

Suggestion of error overruled.
## Draft Proposal CA-19

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC). Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/ commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/



## Limited Application of Air-Cooled Chillers (CA-19)

Objective: Require buildings with 300 tons or greater peak cooling load to have no more than 100 tons

served by air

‐ cooled systems. Include exceptions for high

‐ efficiency air

‐ cooled systems and systems

with thermal storage.

Add Section C403.4.8 as follows:

C403.4.8 Limitation of Air-Cooled Chillers. Chilled water plants with mo re than 300 tons (85 kW)

total capacity shall not have more than 100 tons (30 kW) provided by air-cooled systems.

Exceptions:

1. Where the water quality at the building site fails to meet manufacturer’s specifications for the

use of water-cooled chillers as approved by the code official

.

2. Chillers that are used to charge a thermal energy storage system with a design temperature of

less than 40 ° F (4 ° C).

3. Air-cooled systems with minimum efficiencies 15% greater than efficiencies required by

section C402.3 or section C406. 2, whichever is used.

Reason: Water

‐ cooled chillers are significantly more efficient than air

‐ cooled chillers, using about

30 percent less energy. Once a chiller plant reaches a certain size, it is reasonable to install the more

complex water

‐ cooled equipment. The code change proposal limits the capacity of air

‐ cooled chillers in

larger chilled water plants.

Cost Impact: There would be a cost increase associated with this code change for buildings with chiller

plants larger than 300 tons in capacity that are not subject to the exceptions because those buildings

currently do not require more complex water

‐ cooled systems. A detailed cost analysis conducted in

support of similar provisions in the 2008 California Title 24 (the California energy code) found that this

requirement was cost effective.
Exhibit 35.1

EXHIBIT 35.1  ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2010 (the Sale and Servicing Agreement) among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2010-2, as Issuer (the Issuer), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, CarMax Business Services, LLC, as
Servicer (the Servicer), and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Backup Servicer, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2014 and ending on February 28, 2015 and of the Servicers performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made
under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing
Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officers
Certificate this 22nd day of May, 2015.



CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC/s/ Thomas W. ReedyThomas W. ReedyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
* 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. 01-40984 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS LOPEZ-MOCTEZUMA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-01-CR-74-1

-------------------- June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Lopez-Moctezuma has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lopez-Moctezuma has not filed a response to counsel’s motion and brief. Ou r independent review of the record and counsel’s brief shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw isNo. 01-40984 -2- GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
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 Tire International Environmental Solutions Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jacqueline Danforth, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  April 14, 2008

By:  /s/ Jacqueline Danforth

Name:  Jacqueline Danforth

Title:    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)