alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017151EN.01000602.xml

| 15.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Stichting Woonlinie, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting Woonstede v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN)

(Case C-414/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - State aid - Existing aid - Article 108(1) TFEU - Aid schemes in favour of social housing corporations - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 17, 18 and 19 - Assessment by the Commission of the compatibility with the internal market of an existing aid scheme - Proposal of appropriate measures - Commitments given by the national authorities in order to comply with EU law - Compatibility decision - Scope of judicial review - Legal effects))

(2017/C 151/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Stichting Woonlinie, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting Woonstede (represented by: L. Hancher, E. Besselink and P. Glazener, advocaten)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2015, Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission (T-202/10 RENV, not published, EU:T:2015:287); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2015, Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission (T-202/10 RENV, not published, EU:T:2015:287);

Commission

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

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

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
# L_2008347EN.01S00301.xml

| 23.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 347/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 347/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
No. 51182.

#### Protest 997066-G of Ashcraft-Wilkinson Co. (Savannah).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise invoiced as kelp meal is the same as that the subject of *Centennial Flouring Mills Co.*v *United States*(29 C. C. P. A. 264, C. A. D. 200) and Abstract 49792. In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1705 was sustained.
# C_2008284EN.01001801.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/18

---

Corrigendum to the annotated presentation of regulated markets and national provisions implementing relevant requirements of ISD (Council Directive 93/22/EEC)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 280 of 4 November 2008
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 280 of 4 November 2008

(2008/C 284/09)

In the contents on the cover and in the title on page 5:

for:

‘Annotated presentation of regulated markets and national provisions implementing relevant requirements of ISD (Council Directive 93/22/EEC)’,

read:

‘Annotated presentation of regulated markets and national provisions implementing relevant requirements of MiFID (Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council)’.

---
Case: 2:12-cv-00715-EAS-TPK Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/18/14 Page: 1 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00715-EAS-TPK Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/18/14 Page: 2 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00715-EAS-TPK Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/18/14 Page: 3 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00715-EAS-TPK Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/18/14 Page: 4 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00715-EAS-TPK Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/18/14 Page: 5 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00715-EAS-TPK Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/18/14 Page: 6 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00715-EAS-TPK Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/18/14 Page: 7 of 7  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T14:16:20-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2015, byand among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as SpecialServicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent andCustodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates Series2015-C27 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 ofthe Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreementduring such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
THEBISHOPMATERIALSLABORATORY100ClemsonResearchBlvd.Anderson,SC29625(864)656‐1094www.brickandtile.orgMercuryAnalysisCompanyPlantSampleDescription DateSamplesSentDateDataReceivedHgContent[ppb] LOI[%]TheBowerstonShaleCompanyHanover GreenBrick 6/26/2014 7/1/2014 24.3 4.61TheBowerstonShaleCompanyBowerston GreenBrick 6/26/2014 7/1/2014 40.2 7.73Thistestreportshallnotbereproducedexceptinfull,withoutthewrittenapprovalofthelaboratory.Page1of1THEBISHOPMATERIALSLABORATORY100ClemsonResearchBlvd.Anderson,SC29625(864)656‐1094www.brickandtile.orgMercuryAnalysisPage1of1THEBISHOPMATERIALSLABORATORY100ClemsonResearchBlvd.Anderson,SC29625(864)656‐1094www.brickandtile.orgMercuryAnalysis16A16BPage1of1
Attachment 1

SFP Request Situation
Wednesday 07/30/14 – T-05, a P2V, went out of service at Hill AFB, UT for a fuel seep on the RH wing. I called the 

Helena FSDO at approximately 13:00 to discuss obtaining a SFP and attempted to speak with five different principal 

inspectors with no success. I then attempted to contact the FSDO maintenance supervisor and manager with no 

success. The only thing I could do is to leave numerous voice mails and send texts asking to be contacted. I finally 

established contact with a maintenance inspector at 15:00 and was told I would need to contact the Salt Lake City FSDO 

for a SFP. I explained that the Helena FSDO is our Part 137 Certificate Holding District Office and had been delegated 

authority by other FSDO’s in the past to issue the SFP due to our unique mission and methods of operating. He said that 

by the 8900.1 I had to go through The SLC FSDO. 

I contacted the SLC FSDO only to end up having to leave a voicemail for the on-duty maintenance inspector. I tried to 

stress the importance of being able to move T-05 to Missoula in light of our mission. I was not called back until 15:55

and was told I would be able to get a permit the next day. I explained again the mission of this aircraft and that I would 

lose the flight crew that evening due to the next day being their contract day off. The inspector reluctantly agreed to 

help if it could be done by 16:30. Just after speaking with the SLC inspector, the Helena FSDO manager along with the 

maintenance inspector I had spoken with earlier called. The manager had been able to speak with the SLC manager and 

got permission to issue the SFP. With that I sent the completed application via email and got the permit at 16:46. I then 

notified the SLC inspector that the Helena FSDO had been given authority to issue the permit. 

In this instance, we were able to obtain a SFP in the last moments of FSDO availability and move T-05 to our 

maintenance facility for a repair that we could not perform in the field. 

We encounter other situations during the wildfire season where the ideal thing to do would be to ferry the aircraft to 

one of our maintenance facilities, but we find ourselves needing a SFP after FSDO normal hours. In these situations, we 

most commonly take one of two following options to repair the aircraft:

1. Based on distance and weight/bulk/size of needed repair parts, test equipment, and required personnel, one or 

more trucks are loaded and sent to the aircraft.

2. Again, based on distance and the ability to fit the needed parts, equipment, and personnel in our King Air or 

Falcon 10, we launch an aircraft to the tanker.

While these solutions do work, they are expensive and time consuming, but an AOG tanker loses a great deal of 

availability time and is a critical resource that is not available to the incident commanders that rely heavily on the LAT 

fleet.
No. 50260.

#### Protest 3723-K of California Ship Supply Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keepe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of Edam cheese similar in all material respects to that passed upon in Abstracts 42146 and 42309, which records were incorporated herein. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance of 1 percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the foreign substance on the outside. The protest was sustained to this extent.
# Official Journal L 113/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.113.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 113 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 526 May 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.113.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 113

English edition

Legislation

Volume 526 May 2009

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Commission Directive 2009/26/EC of 6 April 2009 amending Council Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

DIRECTIVES

*

Commission Directive 2009/26/EC of 6 April 2009 amending Council Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 43069.

#### Protest 992190-G of L. A. Salomon & Bro. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was established that the importation in question is the same as the silica the subject of *Salomon*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 293, C. D. 68). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1775 was therefore sustained.
# C_2016048EN.01000602.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-183/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Sub-heading 9027 10 10 - Ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers - Handheld particle counters))

(2016/C 048/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TSI GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 must be interpreted as meaning that ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers and handheld particle counters, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not fall under subheading 9027 10 10 thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

1

---
# Official Journal C 71/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 71 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 607 March 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 71

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 607 March 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 71/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8349 — KKR & Co/The GfK Verein/GfK) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2017/C 71/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8390 — PSPIB/TIAA/Vantage) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2017/C 71/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8352 — KKR/KSL/Apple Leisure Group) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 71/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8349 — KKR & Co/The GfK Verein/GfK) (
  1
  )

1

1

2017/C 71/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8390 — PSPIB/TIAA/Vantage) (
  1
  )

1

1

2017/C 71/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8352 — KKR/KSL/Apple Leisure Group) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 71/04 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 71/04

Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 71/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8254 — HP/Printer business of Samsung Electronics) (
  1
  ) | 4 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2017/C 71/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8254 — HP/Printer business of Samsung Electronics) (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 19 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk July 19 , 2017

15 3489 ( 92 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant

, SC: 15 3489

v COA: 3 09987

Oakland CC: 2011

- 237303

- FH

EARL CANTRELL CARRUTHERS

, Defendant

- Appell ee

. _____________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appell ee to extend the time

for filing hi s answer is GRANTED . The answer submitted on July 14

, 2017 , is accepted

for filing

.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY A. O’LEXEY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE US SENATORS

OFFICE; PATTY MURRAY, Washington

State US Senator,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 35047

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 00289

- SAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Larry A. O’Lexey appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

his action arising from the denial of his claim for long

- term disability benefits . We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismi ssal under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 29 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 35047

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 3 4 1

(9th Cir. 2010) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed O’Lexey’s action because O’Lexey

failed to allege facts sufficient to state any cognizable clai m for relief. See

Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121

- 22 (9th Cir. 2008)

(“A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal

theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal t heory.”

( citation and internal quotations marks omitted) ) ; see also Hebbe , 627 F.3d at 341

-

42 ( although pro se pleadings are liberally construed , a plaintiff must still present

factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief )

.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as unsupported by the record O’Lexey’s contention that the

district court violated his due process rights.

AFFIRMED.
No. 40356.

#### Protests 288831-G, etc., of Jay Thorpe, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel .atomizers, bottles, trays, boxes, place card stands, and photo frames chiefly used on the table or in the household for utilitarian pürposes or hollow ware were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339, *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. *530103, T. D. 46445), *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816), *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 47857), and *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) cited. Toilet sets similar to those the subject of Abstract 8950 were held dutiable as brushes at 45 percent under paragraph 1407 and mirrors at 50 percent under paragraph 230.
# Official Journal C 119/30 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 119 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4730 April 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 119

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4730 April 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 119/1 | Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 15.4.2004 to 30.4.2004(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 119/1

Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 15.4.2004 to 30.4.2004(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
* 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. 02-40377 Conference Calendar

DOUGLAS WAYNE BURKS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus ERNEST CHANDLER, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CV-40

-------------------- December 11, 2002 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Douglas Wayne Burks, federal inmate #83737-079, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Burks was convicted on a guilty plea of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. Burks reiterates the challenges to his conviction that he asserted in the district court. We review the district court’sNo. 02-40377 -2- legal conclusions de novo . Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 476 (2001). The district court may entertain a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that challenges custody resulting from a federal sentence if the petitioner satisfies the requirements of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 “savings clause.” Jeffers , 253 F.3d at 830
. To do so, a petitioner must show first that his claim is based “‘on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.’” Id. (citation omitted). Burks has not identified a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision upon which he relies. Id. Accordingly, Burks has not made the showing required to proceed under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Jeffers , 253 F.3d at 830 , 831. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2017300EN.01002702.xml

| 11.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/27

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 June 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-683/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 300/32)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

1

---