alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 189/2023

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 189 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6627 July 2023 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 189

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6627 July 2023

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | BUDGETS |
| | * | Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2023/1469 of amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2023 | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

BUDGETS

*

Definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2023/1469 of amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2023

1

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

Budgetary remarks are only executable insofar as they do not modify or extend the scope of an existing legal base, impinge on the administrative autonomy of institutions and can be covered by available resources.

| 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. 49379.

Suit 4449.

#### United *States*v. *C. J. Tower & Sons.*

affirmed March 6, 1944. C. A. D. 271.
No. 46920.

#### Protests 842106-G, etc., of Benkyodo Co. et al. (San Francisco, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Generalized Process Flow for 

Manufacture of Substrate 

Infused Carbon 

Nanostructures

Substrate Payout

Sanitized (optional step)

Sanitized (optional step)

Sanitized

Sanitized

CNS Growth Oven

Sanitized

Sanitized

Sanitized (optional step)

Processing into Thermoplastic or 

Matrix Impregnation of Substrate
Case: 2:12-cv-01195-EAS-EPD Doc #: 54 Filed: 11/15/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T19:55:25-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
69–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–572 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 2537) TO AMEND THE 

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT RELATING TO BEACH MONITORING, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

APRIL 8, 2008.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Ms. MATSUI, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 1083] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 1083, by a non-record vote, report the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2537, the 

‘‘Beach Protection Act of 2007,’’ under an open rule with a 

preprinting requirement. The resolution provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure. 

The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of 

the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 

resolution provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as 

read. The resolution waives all points of order against the committee amendment except those arising under clause 10 of rule 

XXI. This waiver does not affect the point of order available under 

clause 9 of rule XXI (regarding earmark disclosure). 

The resolution makes in order only those amendments that are 

preprinted in the Congressional Record before beginning consideration of the bill or are pro forma amendments for the purpose of 

debate. Each amendment printed in the Congressional Record may 

be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read. 

The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without 

instructions. Finally, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
2 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration to a time 

designated by the Speaker. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

Although the rule waives all points of order against the bill and 

its consideration (except for those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 

rule XXI), the Committee is not aware of any points of order 

against the bill or its consideration. The waivers of all points of 

order against the bill and its consideration (except those arising 

under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI) are prophylactic in nature. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with REPORTS
Before the First Division,

November 9, 1950

No. 54842.

#### Wm. J. Jones & Co., Agent for Henry A. Dreer, Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6744-R (Philadelphia).

*312Opinion by

Cole, J.

From the testimony it appeared that at the time of arrival of the shipment in question, a major maritime strike was pending, and knowing the perishable nature of the imported commodities, “terrific pressure” was exerted to get them moved before the strike broke. The urgency of the situation, -requiring immediate customs clearance of the merchandise to avoid deterioration, if not total loss, caused petitioner to assume that the consular invoice was the same as the commercial invoice. Accordingly, entry was made on the basis of information and figures set forth on the consular invoice. Later, and after the goods had been removed from the pier, the customs examiner found that a discount appearing on the consular invoice and used on entry was not shown on the commercial invoice. Disallowance by the appraiser of that discount is the difference between the entered and appraised values of the affected items. From an examination of the record the court was satisfied that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

November 6, 2013

No. 04

- 13

- 00430

- CV

John F. DAVIS

, Appellant

v.

FARIAS ENTERPRISES LTD.

, Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010

- CVT

- 001822D3 Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

We ORDER that appellee Farias Enterprises Ltd. recover its costs of this appeal, if any, from appellant John F. Davis.

It is so ORDERED on November 6, 2013

.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the se al of the said court on this 6th day of November, 2013

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 551 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that illegal immigrants should not receive 

Social Security benefits and that this prohibition should be strictly enforced. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2006 

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. PRYOR, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mrs. LINCOLN, 

Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. JOHNSON) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Finance 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that illegal immigrants 

should not receive Social Security benefits and that this 

prohibition should be strictly enforced. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that ille2 gal immigrants should not receive Social Security benefits 

3 and that this prohibition should be strictly enforced. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
##### U.S. Geological SurveyGeologic Investigations Series I-2569version 1.0

# Geologic Map of Upper Eocene to Holocene Volcanic and Related Rocks of the Cascade Range, Oregon

### *By* David R. Sherrod and James G. Smith 

### 2000

Since 1979, Earth scientists of the Geothermal Research Program of the U.S. Geological Survey have carried out multidisciplinary research in the Cascade Range. The goal of this research is to understand the geology, tectonics, and hydrology of the Cascades in order to characterize and quantify geothermal resource potential. A major goal of the program is compilation of a comprehensive geologic map of the entire Cascade Range that incorporates modern field studies and that has a unified and internally consistent explanation. 

This map is one of three in a series that shows Cascade Range geology by fitting published and unpublished mapping into a province-wide scheme of rock units distinguished by composition and age; map sheets of the Cascade Range in Washington (Smith, 1993) and California will complete the series. The complete series forms a guide to exploration and evaluation of the geothermal resources of the Cascade Range and will be useful for studies of volcano hazards, volcanology, and tectonics. 

----

**File         Name******File         Type and Description****File         Size**FILES         for VIEWING and PLOTTING**i2569_pamphlet.pdfPDF file of the 17-page descriptive geologic pamphlet that accompanies the map 1.3 MB i2569_sheet1.pdfPDF file       of map sheet 1 that can be used for viewing map in a browser, as well as for plotting (geologic map, description of map units, correlation of map units, cross sections and text)12 MBi2569_sheet2.pdfPDF file       of map sheet 2 that can be used for viewing map in a browser, as well as for plotting (sources of data and references)239 KBAlso of Interest
*Database for the Geologic Map of Upper Eocene to Holocene Volcanicand Related Rocks of the Cascade Range, Oregon*, by Kathryn Nimz, David W. Ramsey, David R. Sherrod, and James G. Smith, USGS Data Series 313

Suggested citation and version history

For questions about the content of this report, contact Dave Sherrod.

Download a free copy of the current version of Adobe Reader.

| Help   | PDF help   | Western reports  main page | | Western Geologic and Miscellaneous Investigation Series Maps || Privacy   Statement | Disclaimer   | Accessibility || Geologic   Division | Volcano Hazards Program   |

This report is available in print form from:

USGS Information Services, Box 25286,   Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225  telephone: 888-ASK-USGS; e-mail: infoservices@usgs.gov
| Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey |URL of this page: https://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i-2569/Maintained by: Michael Diggles Created: June 21, 2004Last modified: October 17, 2008 (mfd)********
# C_2017070EN.01000301.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig — Germany) — Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-282/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Articles 34 to 36 TFEU - Purely domestic situation - Food safety - Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Article 6 - Principle of risk analysis - Article 7 - Precautionary principle - Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 - Member State legislation prohibiting the manufacture and sale of food supplements containing amino acids - Situation in which a temporary derogation to that prohibition is at the discretion of the national authority))

(2017/C 070/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits the manufacture, processing or marketing of any food supplement containing amino acids, unless a derogation has been issued by a national authority with discretion in that respect, where that legislation is based on a risk analysis which concerns only certain amino acids, which it is for the referring court to verify. In any event, those articles must be interpreted as precluding such national legislation, where that legislation lays down that the derogations to the prohibition covered by it may only be granted for a specific period even in cases where the safety of a substance is established.

---

(1)  OJ 2015 C 294, p. 30.

1

---
# C_2016475EN.01001403.xml

| 19.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 475/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 475/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — Maria Bosneaga v Instituția Prefectului — județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

(Case C-235/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 475/22)

Language of the case: Romanian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

1

---
* 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. 96-50932 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARMANDO VALADEZ, JR., also known as Armando Valdez, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-96-CR-35-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel was appointed by this court to assist Armando Valadez, Jr., in challenging the district court’s determination that any appeal would be frivolous, thus denying Valadez leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP). Court-appointed counsel has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of counsel’s briefs, Valadez’s responses, and the record discloses no nonfrivolousNo. 96-50932 -2- issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Valadez’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

LEROY COLLINS, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:12-cv-1093 

 JUDGE SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Deavers 

WARDEN, LONDON CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On April 23, 2014, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be 

GRANTED and that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants; and that Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment be DENIED. (See Doc. 46). 

The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation. This 

matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and Defendants’ Response to 

that Motion. (See Docs. 48 and 49). In so far as Plaintiff’s arguments are construed as 

objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court will consider the matter de novo. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

 Plaintiff, in response to the Report and Recommendation, filed what is titled a Motion to 

Dismiss, requesting dismissal, but also arguing that he disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s 

Case: 2:12-cv-01093-GCS-EPD Doc #: 50 Filed: 05/28/14 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

decision to deny his Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants argue, and the Court agrees, 

that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss is more properly characterized as an objection to the 

Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. This case has been pending since November of 

2012, numerous motions have been filed and adjudicated, including the most recent motions for 

summary judgment. A voluntary dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) is not proper, nor does 

the Court find that dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is proper. Plaintiff is merely trying to 

avoid final adjudication on the merits of his case and dismissal with prejudice, by filing a motion 

to dismiss. 

 Plaintiff’s objections, however, merely present the arguments and issues presented to and 

considered by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated 

in the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that the objections are without merit. 

The Report and Recommendation, Document 46, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment is GRANTED. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 28, 35, 46, and 48 from the Court’s pending motions 

list. The Clerk shall enter final judgment in favor of Defendants. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:12-cv-01093-GCS-EPD Doc #: 50 Filed: 05/28/14 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000101295
<NAME> UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,282,072
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,064,017
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,300
<INVENTORY>                                  1,245,893 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,920,209
<PP&E>                                       4,402,793
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,910,823
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,223,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          316,122
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       488,124
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,322,845
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,223,202
<SALES>                                      4,499,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,499,595
<CGS>                                        2,623,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,623,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                956,838
<INCOME-TAX>                                   363,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            593,638
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   593,638
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

July 18, 1938

No. 39014.

#### Protest 165846-G of G. M. Boutross Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was found that certain items consist of filet laces similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Jabara*(22 C. C. P. A. 77, T. D. 47065) and other items like those passed upon in *Pustet*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 530, T. D. 41396). On the established facts filet laces and certain towels and squares were held dutiable as embroidered at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
# C_2015294EN.01002201.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 June 2015 — GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH

(Case C-262/15)

(2015/C 294/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: GD European Land Systems — Steyr GmbH

Appellant:

Respondent authority: Zollamt Eisenstadt Flughafen Wien

Respondent authority:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the exception specified in point (c) of note 1 to Chapter 93 of the Combined Nomenclature (Part II of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013) (2), which is worded ‘armoured fighting vehicles (heading 8710)’, apply also to ‘parts thereof’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the exception specified in point (c) of note 1 to Chapter 93 of the Combined Nomenclature (Part II of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013) (2), which is worded ‘armoured fighting vehicles (heading 8710)’, apply also to ‘parts thereof’?

1

2

| 2. | Must note 3 to Section XVII of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as meaning that a ‘weapons station (armoured turret)’ which may be used on armoured fighting vehicles or on ‘mobile maritime transport systems’ or in stationary installations must be classified under heading 8710 as a part of an armoured fighting vehicle because that weapons station was imported by the manufacturer of armoured fighting vehicles for the production or assembly of armoured fighting vehicles and is used in fact for that purpose? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must note 3 to Section XVII of the Combined Nomenclature be interpreted as meaning that a ‘weapons station (armoured turret)’ which may be used on armoured fighting vehicles or on ‘mobile maritime transport systems’ or in stationary installations must be classified under heading 8710 as a part of an armoured fighting vehicle because that weapons station was imported by the manufacturer of armoured fighting vehicles for the production or assembly of armoured fighting vehicles and is used in fact for that purpose?

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2013 L 290, p. 1.

2

---