alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007211EN.01001302.xml

| 8.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/13

---

Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-271/07)

(2007/C 211/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by partially or incorrectly transposing Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14, Article 17(2) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 (1) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by partially or incorrectly transposing Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14, Article 17(2) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 (1) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission complains that the defendant has transposed partially or incorrectly, or failed to transpose, a number of essential provisions of Directive 96/61. The action, which concerns the measures adopted (or not adopted) by the Region of Wallonia and the Region of Bruxelles-Capitale, relates, in particular, to the lack of correspondence between the material scope of application of those measures and that of the Directive and to the over-wide power of assessment given to the regional authorities with regard to the operating permits and the situations in which the conditions of the permit must be re-assessed and/or updated.

---

(1)  OJ L 257, p. 26.

1

---
# C_2007155EN.01003801.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/38

---

Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Sundholm against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 1 March 2007 in Case F-30/05, Sundholm v Commission

(Case T-164/07 P)

(2007/C 155/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

| — | Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2007 in the Case F-30/05 (Sundholm v Commission); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2007 in the Case F-30/05 (Sundholm v Commission);

Sundholm v Commission

| — | Give judgment again, and annul the Commission decision drawing up her Career Development Report for 2003 and order the defendant to pay the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Give judgment again, and annul the Commission decision drawing up her Career Development Report for 2003 and order the defendant to pay the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By her appeal the applicant seeks to annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing the action in which she had sought the annulment of her Career Development Report for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003.

In support of her appeal, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the plea alleging infringement of the rights of the defence.

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6641]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Data Collection Available for Public Comments and Recommendations

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to 
request approval on a new and/or currently approved information 
collection.

DATES: Submit comments on or before June 8, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments regarding whether this information 
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of 
the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are 
ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the 
collection, to Michael Pappas, Associate Administrator, Office of Field 
Operation, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 8th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Pappas, Associate 
Administrator, Office of Field Operations 202-619-1727, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#066b6f656e67636a287667767667754675646728616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="701d19131811151c5e001100001103300312115e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>; Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-
7030, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#583b2d2a2c312b762a313b30182b3a39763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c6f797e78657f227e656f644c7f6e6d226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: ``Lender Relationship Management''.
    Description of Respondents: Financial Institutions eligible for the 
SBA 7(a) program (existing and potential).
    Form No: N/A.
    Annual Responses: 500.
    Annual Burden: 166.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. E7-6641 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

JACQUELYN S. PARTLOW,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

vs.

 CASE NO. C2-11-066

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

SECURITY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE E.A. PRESTON DEAVERS

Defendant.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or

trial.

Pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed March 20, 2012, JUDGMENT is hereby

entered remanding this case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further

consideration. This case is DISMISSED.

Date: March 23, 2012 JAMES BONINI, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00066-EAS-EPD Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/23/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2007151EN.01000601.xml

| 5.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 July 2007

(2007/C 151/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3618 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 166,87 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4415 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67535 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1730 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6558 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 84,43 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9365 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5839 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,699 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,12 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7599 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,1348 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,479 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7616 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5875 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4415 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6393 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7407 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0709 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 252,65 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5020 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3425 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3040 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 266,41 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6928 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,711 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,9470 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,965 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3618

JPY

Japanese yen

166,87

DKK

Danish krone

7,4415

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67535

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1730

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6558

ISK

Iceland króna

84,43

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9365

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5839

CZK

Czech koruna

28,699

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,12

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7599

RON

Romanian leu

3,1348

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,479

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7616

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5875

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4415

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6393

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7407

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0709

KRW

South Korean won

1 252,65

ZAR

South African rand

9,5020

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3425

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3040

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 266,41

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6928

PHP

Philippine peso

62,711

RUB

Russian rouble

34,9470

THB

Thai baht

42,965

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# l^^^^ ^ ^ ? r^^^- ^ C ^ [ j Di V o i

# CITX •^•f i • > • r• • ' -.•:•; • J1 J r i; - r ^ ' - A. : •il l 

### 'C\^ A OFFIC E O F TH E MAYO R Apri l 1( K

:() I I

Ml . Denni s DeVain . <"liie l I s^entia l Ai r Sci \ic c 1 Ji\i<io n 1 HVic c 11 1 Aviiilin nAiuiKsi s ' 'S . Dciiailmen i (^fTraiT^pniiant m^ i:i' 0 \i-\ v .lol^O y A\i.-. . S K •^^':l^l^inl:lon . \).C . 2i)f^^n ^ !.hn-k\' f \'nn)hi- /

!)<) / -()sr~:'ii)! - lii6.'s ^ L ^ Ilea l Mr . DoV'aiiy : " .\-< Mil ) 0 1 niilK * (.'ii y 0 1 Mii'io nC'ii\ . iowj . I .siippi*ri th e Nfcsah aA \iaiioii . Inc . propo>a l an d i,tKULirau c \t' U an dUIL - I .*^. !). < >

. I < tW'wjt: l o iLXOininun dauaidiii u ih c IA S t,iMitr.ii. i U i \IL'^;III; I .\\iation . Inc . Mcsahi^' s proposa l uil l ensur e dier e i s supcrit^ r quali u ol'ai r

servic e availabl e Iro mth e Masor i ( it > Airport , whic hi s ver \imporian i t o ih e resident* ^ ;uu i bu.'^incase s ol " Maso nI'ltv , a* ; wel l a* ^ di e i'UrroiindinL : coinnuinuie s I appieeia u \ou r

con^ideralio no l m y coininciU s ,in dloo k toiuar dl o hcarniL

Zih e laiLddec:%io n i'l i ai r -^crMc e tti r

Maso nti u SHKCICIV . l>i c llookmeye r Mavn r

• . • • i • • ! - .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901



### JAN 1 4 2009

Leo Drozdoff Administrator Nevada Division ofEnvironmental Protection 901 South StewartStreet, Suite 4001 Carson City, NV 89701-5249
DearMr. Drozdoff:
I amwriting today to notify you that the State ofNevada has failed to submit for EPA action a regional haze state implementation plan (SIP). The purpose ofthe plan is to address regional haze in mandatory class I Federal areas (ournational parks and wilderness areas) as required by the Clean AirAct (CAA) and federal regulations. EPA will soon publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing its finding offailure to submit yourregional haze SIP as requiredunder40 CFR 51.308. The finding will be effective upon publication ofthe notice. Congress established as a national goal the prevention ofany future, and the remedying ofany existing, impairment ofvisibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade airpollution (CAA 169A(a)(l)). The EPA promulgated regulations (40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309) requiring states to develop and submit SIPs to address regional haze. However, we have not received a formal submission ofany ofthe required SIP elements, which were due to EPA by December 17,2007. Upon the effective date ofthe Federal Register notice, EPA must within two years either fully approve Nevada's regional haze SIP orpromulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) as required by CAA section 110(c)(l). Please be aware that EPA needs approximately 12 months afterreceipt ofa SIP to take final action. Ifwe do not have sufficient time to review and approve a submitted SIP revision, the CAA requires that EPA impose a FIP. 

### In orderto avoid having EPA issue a FIP, we strongly recommend that you submit your revised SIP within a year ofthis finding. Should EPA determine it necessary to begin development ofa FIP, EPA may withhold a portion ofsection 105 grant funds to your State for the FIP developmentwork.

Printed on Recycled PaperI want to acknowledge that Nevada has made substantial progress in meeting its obligations under the Act. Itis my understanding that Nevada's regional haze SIP is currently underreview by the Federal Land Managers, and scheduled for completion over the next few months. We lookforward to receiving the State's formal submittal in the near future.
Please be assured that we will continue to workclosely with your office to undertake all necessaryefforts to ensure that the submittal meets all Federal requirements. I look forward to working with you to ensure that the CAArequirements are met in a timely and effective manner. Sincerely,

# /~/

# ~borah Jordan Director, AirDivision

cc: Colleen Cripps Michael Elges Adele Malone
No. 47452.

#### Protest 72770-K/90612 of N. Shure Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

At the hearing it was conceded that certain of the items in question are manufactures of metal not specially provided for and not plated, composed in chief value of lead. In accordance therewith, the claim at 22)4 percent under paragraph 397 and T. D. 49753 was sustained as to the items specified.
Exhibit 32
 Certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.
  August 5, 2009

Date
    
    
    
    /s/ Richard J. Jarosinski

Richard J. Jarosinski, President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 5, 2009

Date
    
    
    
    /s/ John N. Pesarsick

John N. Pesarsick, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
# C_2007234EN.01000502.xml

| 6.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4851 — Sagard/Fläkt Woods)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 234/05)

On 13 September 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4851. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4851. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, David Guest, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Berry Only Inc., hereby certifies, 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 on Form 10-K of Berry Only Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2011 (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 Berry Only Inc.





Dated: September 28, 2011





/s/ David Guest


David Guest


President, Secretary and Treasurer


(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Berry Only Inc. and will be retained by Berry Only Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Marks & Rosenfeld, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7359.

Invoices dated Hanley, England, August 1944, etc.

Certified August 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 5, 1944, etc.

Entry Nos. 708178; 758885.

(Decided August 14, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*234Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
f8k080608ex10vi_ea2fund.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.6

     

    AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO THE

    FUND.COM
INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS

    MEADE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.)

    2007
STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

    


    


    Fund. com
Inc. (the “Company”), having
adopted the Fund.com Inc. (formerly known as Meade Technologies, Inc.) 2007
Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), hereby amends
the Plan as follows:

    


    1.  Section
2.13 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:

    


    “Fair Market Value” means, with respect
to a Share, the market price of one Share of Stock, determined by the Board in
good faith and in accordance with Section 409A of the Code and the regulations
thereunder.  Such determination shall be conclusive and binding on all
persons.

    


    2. This
Amendment is effective as of August 6, 2008.

    


    


    


    [Signature page to
follow]

     

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its duly authorized officer, has executed this
Amendment No. 1 to the Plan on the date indicated below.

    


    


    


    FUND.COM INC.

    


    


    


    By: /s/ Raymond Lang

    Name: Raymond Lang

    Title: Chief Executive
Officer
No. 44146.

#### Protests 781348-G, etc., of Butler Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303) the Rockingham-ware in question was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 210 as claimed.
#### Jeremiah Callaghan, as Adm’r, Resp’t, *v.*The Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., App’lt.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: November                10, 2008 | By:                          | /s/ Tianfu                Yang |
|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                                        | Tianfu                Yang             |
|                                        | Chief                Executive Officer |
|                                        |                                   |
| Date: November                10, 2008 | By:                          | /s/ Zedong                Xu   |
|                                        | Zedong                Xu               |
|                                        | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
Lakeland Section 8-6(16). Permits and Fees - Reporting Requirements.

(a) Except as provided below, each permitted stationary air pollution source 

must submit to the Department an annual report that establishes the amount 

of actual emissions of each regulated pollutant, including carbon monoxide, 

for that source. This report will be for the emissions of that source that 

occurred during the calendar year starting in 1991 and continuing for 

succeeding years thereafter. The Department may request, and the air 

pollution source shall provide, additional information on the emissions 

data submitted when the Department determines, the data previously provided 

is inadequate to establish the actual type or amount of emissions from the 

source subject to fees.

(b) Not including air toxics as they are defined in the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 and the amendments thereto, if the source emits fewer 

than twenty five (25) tons of actual emissions of pollutant during a year, 

it may at its option, use as the actual emissions figure, its permitted 

pollutant levels where available and known. If the source is a "major 

source" under the air toxics provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990 it too must calculate its actual emission of regulated pollutants. 

Failure to provide, on a timely basis, any additional information requested 

shall be considered failure to pay the fees.

8-6(16), p. 1
# C_2007223EN.01001703.xml

| 22.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/17

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2007 — Rath v OHIM — AstraZeneca (VIXACOR)

(Case T-326/05) (1)

1

(2007/C 223/30)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

1

---