alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7921]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5761]


Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy; Notice of 
Open Meeting

    The Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (ACIEP) 
will meet from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9, 2007, at the U.S. 
Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC. The meeting 
will be hosted by Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and 
Business Affairs, Daniel S. Sullivan and Committee Chairman R. Michael 
Gadbaw. The ACIEP serves the U.S. Government in a solely advisory 
capacity concerning issues and challenges in international economic 
policy. The meeting will focus on Total Economic Engagement, including 
a regional focus on Indonesia, industry focus on the State Department's 
role in international energy policy, public-private partnerships 
pertaining to capacity building, and the launch of the Secretary of 
State's 2007 Award for Corporate Excellence program.
    This meeting is open to the public as seating capacity allows. 
Entry to the building is controlled; to obtain pre-clearance for entry, 
members of the public planning to attend should provide, by May 7, 
their name, professional affiliation, valid government-issued ID number 
(i.e., U.S. Government ID [agency], U.S. military ID [branch], passport 
[country], or drivers license [state]), date of birth, and citizenship 
to Ronelle Jackson by fax (202) 647-5936, e-mail (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#064c67656d756968545546757267726328616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fcb69d9f978f9392aeafbc8f889d8899d29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>), 
or telephone (202) 647-9204. One of the following forms of valid photo 
identification will be required for admission to the State Department 
building: U.S. driver's license, passport, or U. S. Government 
identification card. Enter the Department of State from the C Street 
lobby. In view of escorting requirements, non-Government attendees 
should plan to arrive not less than 15 minutes before the meeting 
begins.
    For additional information, contact Senior Coordinator Nancy Smith-
Nissley, Office of Economic Policy and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of 
Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, at (202) 647-1682 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8fbc5c1dcc085e6c1dbdbc4cdd1e6e8dbdcc9dccd86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdeed0d4c9d590f3d4ceced1d8c4f3fdcec9dcc9d893dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: April 17, 2007.
David R. Burnett,
Office Director, Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public 
Diplomacy, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E7-7921 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2009046EN.01S00301.xml

| 25.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

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.

---
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1246

___________ Ahmed Mohamud Isaq, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of an v. * Order of the Immigration * and Naturalization Service. Immigration and Naturalization * Service, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 2000 Filed: April 24, 2000

___________ Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After an Immigration Judge denied Ahmed Mohamud Isaq asylum and withholding of deportation, he appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the decision. Isaq moved for reconsideration, but the BIA denied his motion. In this petition for review, Isaq argues that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider certain hardship factors.-2-

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the BIA did not err in refusing to consider the hardship factors, as Isaq has not shown that he applied to the Attorney General for a suspension of his deportation, and the hardship factors were thus irrelevant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a) (Supp. 1996) (Attorney General may, in her discretion, suspend deportation of alien who applies to Attorney General for suspension, has been physically present in United States for continuous period of at least seven years, is person of good moral character, and deportation of whom would result in extreme hardship to self, spouse, parent or child); cf. Feleke v. INS , 118 F.3d 594, 599-600 (8th Cir. 1997) (appellate court had no jurisdiction to address issue of alien’s eligibility for suspension of deportation where BIA never took action on issue andalien first sought to introduce it in motion before appellate court). We conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. See Perwolf v. INS , 741 F.2d 1109, 1110 (8th Cir. 1984) (standard of review). Accordingly, we deny Isaq’s petition. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 59140.

protests 195221-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bertrand Freres, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10269)

#### Frasers *v.*United States

Entry No. 918215, etc.

(Decided on rehearing [not published] May 29, 1962)

Barnes, *Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*William H. Orrich, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed on schedule “A,” attached to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated on Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade in the principal markets of Germany.

> 2. That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade in the principal markets of Germany for exportation to the United States.

> *6773. That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the principal markets of the United States to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade.

> 4. With regard to the items marked “A” and initialed RM by Examiner Robert Muir on the invoices covered by the above-entitled appeals, the cost of production as defined in Section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 is equal to the indicated Deutsche mark figures noted in green ink, less 33%%, less 3%, less 4%, plus the proportionate part of the export packing as indicated on the invoice.

> 5. With regard to the items marked “B” and initialed RM by Examiner Robert Muir on the invoices covered by the above-entitled appeals, the cost or production as defined in Section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 is equal to the invoiced unit values, in United States dollars, net, packed.

> 6. The appeals enumerated in Schedule “A” hereto attached may be submitted on this stipulation the same being limited to the merchandise and issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

Upon the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeals for reappraisement and that such values were as follows:

With regard to the items marked *“A”*and initialed EM, by Examiner Eobert Muir, on the invoices covered by said appeals, equal to the indicated deutsche mark figures noted in green ink, less 33*4 per centum, less 3 per centum, less 4 per centum, plus the proportionate part of the export packing as indicated on the invoice.

With regard to the items marked “B” and initialed EM, by Examiner Eobert Muir, on said invoices, equal to the invoiced unit values, in United States dollars, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# L_2013193EN.01S00301.xml

| 16.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 193/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 193/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00318-CV

In re Manuel Barrientes

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Manuel Barrientes has filed a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition and a

motion for temporary relief seeking to halt further proceedings in the 368th District Court

of Williamson County in cause number 02-818-K368. In that cause, Barrientes pleaded guilty to

aggravated assault and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. After

the State filed a motion to adjudicate, Barrientes applied for a writ of habeas corpus complaining

that he had been previously convicted for the same assault, and that his prosecution in cause number

02-818-K368 subjected him to double jeopardy. Barrientes asked for relief in the form of a

discharge from supervision and dismissal of the indictment. Following a hearing on the merits of

Barrientes’s application, habeas corpus relief was denied. Barrientes perfected an appeal from the

order denying relief, and that appeal is now pending in this Court as our cause number 03-06-00418-

CR. In the instant petition and motion, Barrientes states that a hearing on the State’s motion to

adjudicate in cause number 02-818-K368 has been set for June 6, 2007.
2

Where a double jeopardy claim has been denied in an appealable order, the defendant

has a right to appeal before the trial of the indictment he attacks. Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d

552, 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). Although Robinson is not squarely on point, we believe that the

broader principle for which it stands applies here. Barrientes’s double jeopardy challenge to his

continued prosecution in cause number 02-818-K368 was denied in an appealable order. Barrientes

has a right to appeal that order before being exposed to further proceedings—and possible

imprisonment—in that cause. Barrientes’s right to appeal following an adjudication of guilt is not

an adequate remedy for the asserted double jeopardy violation. See id. at 555.

The district court is obligated to hold in abeyance any further proceedings in cause

number 02-818-K368 pending final disposition of Barrientes’s appeal from the denial of habeas

corpus relief. We are confident that the district court will comply with this obligation without the

necessity of this Court issuing a writ of mandamus. The motion for temporary relief is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Filed: June 5, 2007
# Official Journal L 219/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 219 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6524 August 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 219

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6524 August 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1424 of 18 August 2022 establishing a fisheries closure for bigeye tuna in the Atlantic Ocean for vessels flying the flag of Portugal | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1424 of 18 August 2022 establishing a fisheries closure for bigeye tuna in the Atlantic Ocean for vessels flying the flag of Portugal

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. 54234.

#### Simon Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 153690-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal bags the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          899202
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1780138
<ALLOWANCES>                                    701992
<INVENTORY>                                    1968104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4140744
<PP&E>                                         2996907
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1255983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8723899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1391235
<BONDS>                                          70168
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      53744637
<OTHER-SE>                                  (46361954)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8723899
<SALES>                                        5763631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5763631
<CGS>                                          2965846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5484973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (46301)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 30904
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              136527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 213032
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             213032
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    213032
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01850]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 1630

Regulations To Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the 
Americans With Disabilities Act

CFR Correction

    In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 900 to 1899, 
revised as of July 1, 2013, on page 397, in the Appendix to Part 1630, 
under Section 1630.2(o), after the third paragraph, the following 
paragraph is reinstated:

Appendix to Part 1630--Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the 
Americans With Disabilities Act

* * * * *

Section 1630.2(o) Reasonable Accommodation

* * * * *
    Part 1630 lists the examples, specified in title I of the ADA, 
of the most common types of accommodation that an employer or other 
covered entity may be required to provide. There are any number of 
other specific accommodations that may be appropriate for particular 
situations but are not specifically mentioned in this listing. This 
listing is not intended to be exhaustive of accommodation 
possibilities. For example, other accommodations could include 
permitting the use of accrued paid leave or providing additional 
unpaid leave for necessary treatment, making employer provided 
transportation accessible, and providing reserved parking spaces. 
Providing personal assistants, such as a page turner for an employee 
with no hands or a travel attendant to act as a sighted guide to 
assist a blind employee on occasional business trips, may also be a 
reasonable accommodation. Senate Report at 31; House Labor Report at 
62; House Judiciary Report at 39.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-01850 Filed 1-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-75,568-08
EX P ARTE RICARDO SANCHEZ ENRIQUEZ, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR WR IT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2008-1926-C2C IN THE 54 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM MC LENNAN COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Ap p l icant pleade d g uilty to two counts of indece ncy with a child by contac t an d wa s sentenc ed to 3 y ear s’ imprisonment on eac h count. Applicant filed this application for writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. This Court initially rec eived this application on J uly 1, 2020, and dismiss ed it as subsequent
on Aug ust 19, 2020. T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.1(d). The Court ha s since deter mined that the application
was not b ar re d u n d er Article 11.07, § 4. We now withdraw our order of Aug ust 19, 2020, and
rec onsider this application on our own motion. T E X . R. A P P . P. 79.2(d). This Court has underta ken an independe nt revie w of all the evidenc e and pleading s in the2

rec ord. There fore , based on the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and this Court’s independe nt revie w of the e ntire re cord, w e deny the applica tion on the merits.

Filed: Oc tober 7, 2020 Do not publish
02 24:21 p.m 02 16 2010 2023663675 Une OSTW85 310 

# ilntttll**~mt£s ~rnQtt**  WASHINGTON, DC 20610



### February 16) 20l 0

Ray LaHood Secretary 

### U.S, Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey**Avenu~** SE Washington. 

### DC 20590
Dear Secretary LaHood,
We are writing to you regarding new rules being developed to further modify pilotflight, duty, and rest limitations. We share YOW" concern for the safety of airline passengers and believe 

### that improvements can 

### and should be made by the airline carriers. the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),'and Members of Congress 

### that will result 

### in 

### a:higher standard ofairline safety at a lower cost to taxpayers.
That being said, we are concerned that in its haste to implement regulations that 

### appear to 

### address safety concems, 

### the FAA may 

### inadvertently and unnecessarily putcertaincarriers out ofbusiness and, consequently, weaken future 

### humanitarian efforts across the world. 

### In recent Senate testimony and other public statements, the Department of Transportation and 

### the FedcraJ Aviation Administration continue to stress a single,**one~size-fits-all** approach 

### inthe pending regulations. We are 

### concerned that non-scheduled carriers will be inappropriately lumped in with 

### scheduled air carriers.
Non-scheduled carriers pla.y apivotal role in providing 

### humanitarian relief

### and military logistical supportbecause they have the tlexibilityto respond to crises 

### and other emergencies immediaJeiy, Under currentregulations, 14 CFR 121, Subpart S, the FAA 

### already differentiates between different types ofcarriers. This arrangement

### has provided non-scheduled air carriers with the ability to 

### provide commercial service without 

### any safety compromises. Additionally, as you know, Executive 

### Order 12866 requires that the Office of Infonnation and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) ensure that "agencies shall design regulations inthe most cost-effective

### manner to achieve the regulatory objective," We believe that in this**c~** distinguishing between different types ofcarriers will more fully accomplish this executive mandate and enable non-scheduled carriers to remain operational. 

### S10-100216-046022437 p.m 02 16 2010 2/2313 2023663675 line OSTW85 310



### We would appreciate your consideration ofthis matter and request any**cost~** 

### benefit analysis undertaken in conjunction with this rule, and the finaljustification ofthe promulgated rule in light 

### ofExe(;utive Order 12866.


### Thankyou for your service to our great oountry. Sincerely, 

### S10-100216-046
# C_2017121EN.01000501.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV v comtech GmbH

(Case C-568/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 21 - Communication by telephone - Operation of a telephone line by a trader to enable consumers to contact him in relation to a contract concluded - Prohibition on applying a rate higher than the basic rate - Concept of ‘basic rate’))

(2017/C 121/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV

Applicant:

Defendant: comtech GmbH

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘basic rate’ referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that call charges relating to a contract concluded with a trader to a telephone helpline operated by the trader may not exceed the cost of a call to a standard geographic landline or mobile telephone line. Provided that that limit is respected, the fact that the relevant trader makes or does not make a profit through that telephone helpline is irrelevant.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

1

---