alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015146EN.01001801.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 19 February 2015 — Sonos Europe BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-84/15)

(2015/C 146/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sonos Europe BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Should CN headings 8517, 8518, 8519 and 8527 be interpreted as meaning that a product such as that described in this judgment (the ZonePlayer), which receives digital information and without storing it (streaming) reproduces it in the form of amplified sound by means of five (integrated) loudspeakers and/or forwards it to other devices in the local area network, is amenable to classification under one or more of those headings and, if so, which heading(s)? Alternatively, should CN heading 8543 be interpreted as meaning that a device such as the ZonePlayer ought to be classified under that heading as an electrical machine or apparatus with an individual function?

---
(Reap. Dec. 9358)

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 865023/4.

(Decided March 19, 1959)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*570Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement on a stipulation upon the agreed facts in which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved, and that such value, in each instance, is the entered unit value.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 56147.

protest 174073-K (New York).

#### Rinaldi Bros. & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Naumes Forwarding Service*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 93, C. D. 1214), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1646 was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,945,100
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               516,700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                87,400
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,060,100
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         775,700
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           785,100
<LOANS>                                     25,320,500
<ALLOWANCE>                                    481,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,754,200
<DEPOSITS>                                  25,078,800
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,533,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            677,100
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,950,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    150,000
<COMMON>                                       740,900
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,891,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              33,754,200
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                572,700
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               58,700
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 6,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               637,400
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             193,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             260,500
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          376,900
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   45,900
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,700
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                287,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                189,500
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     121,500
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   121,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.31
<LOANS-NON>                                    207,500
<LOANS-PAST>                                    43,500
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   200
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               475,900
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   49,700
<RECOVERIES>                                     8,400
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              481,100
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           481,100
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2015146EN.01003001.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/30 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 4 March 2015 — Kødbranchens Fællesråd acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S and Others v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Fødevarestyrelsen

(Case C-112/15)

(2015/C 146/36)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kødbranchens Fællesråd acting on behalf of Århus Slagtehus A/S, Danish Crown A.m.b.A. Oksekødsdivisionen, Hadsund Kreaturslagteri A/S, Hjalmar Nielsens Eksportslageri A/S, Kjellerup Eksportslagteri A/S, Mogens Nielsen Kreaturslagteri A/S, Vejle Eksportsla A/S

| Defendants | : | 1.
Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri 2.
Fødevarestyrelsen | 1. | Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri | 2. | Fødevarestyrelsen |
| ---------- | ---------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -- | ---------------------------------------------- | -- | ----------------- |
| 1. | Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri | | | | | |
| 2. | Fødevarestyrelsen | | | | | |

Question referred

Must Article 27(4)(a) of, read in conjunction with points 1 and 2 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, be interpreted as meaning that the Member States, in setting the fee charged to food establishments, are precluded from including expenditure for the salaries and training of the public-sector staff who are hired for the purpose of completing training which fulfils the requirements for ‘official auxiliary’: see Regulation (EC) No 854/2004( 2 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, but who, prior to being accepted into the training or in the course of their training do not conduct meat inspections?

---

( 1 )  OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1.

( 2 )  OJ 2004 L 139, p. 206.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (#13883) meeting: 

*Date And Time:*                         May 10-11, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.                     

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, Room 1235, Stafford I Building, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA, 22230.                     

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. G. Wayne Van Citters, Director, Division of Astronomical Sciences, Suite 1045, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703-292-4908. Additional information is available at                         *http://www.nsf.gov/​mps/​ast/​aaac.jsp.*

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on issues within the field of astronomy and astrophysics that are of mutual interest and concern to the agencies.                     

*Agenda:*                         To hear presentations of current programming by representatives from NSF, NASA, DOE and other agencies relevant to astronomy and astrophysics; to discuss current and potential areas of cooperation between the agencies; to formulate recommendations for continued and new areas of cooperation and mechanisms for achieving them.                     

Dated: April 17, 2007. 

Susanne E. Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7-7599 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135672 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135672 

 COA: 273644 

Macomb CC: 2006-000173-FC 

NATHANIEL TYRONE GILBERT, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 20, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0421 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           35078
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     564752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                611767
<PP&E>                                         3138193
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2497724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1430722
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2904200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       7545
<COMMON>                                        130654
<OTHER-SE>                                   (3631110)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1430722
<SALES>                                        3386667
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3386667
<CGS>                                          2737414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2737414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                667398
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              227980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18145)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (18145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18145)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
28 August 2006

Email: GroverThomas@bp.guardian.com

Guardian Fiberglass

1000 East North Street

Albion, MI 49224

Attention: Mr. Grover Thomas, Environmental Engineer

Subject: Guardian Winnsboro, SC Fiberglass Curing Oven RTO, Ref. McGill

AirClean Job # H

- 1766

- 9

Mr. Thomas:

Per your request, we have included a write

- up on verifying the RTO destruction efficiency:

Verification of RTO Destruction Efficiency

The VOC destruction efficiency obtaine d by thermal oxidation is dependent on three

variables: retention time, temperature, and turbulence. For a given installation, the retention

time and turbulence are fixed for the design flow conditions, and only the temperature can be

varied. Most VOC’s can be effectively oxidized or destroyed at a temperature of 1400 °F,

given the residence time in the combustion chamber.

The main variable that controls the destruction efficiency in an RTO is the combustion

chamber temperature. Normal operating tempera ture in the combustion chamber is set to

1500°F, and our VOC outlet guarantee is based on operating at this temperature. Our VOC

outlet guarantee is 95% destruction or reduced to 10 ppm, whichever is less stringent.

Please do not hesitate to call if yo u have any other questions.

Thank you,



## Thomas J. Shay

Thomas J. Shay

McGill AirClean LLC

Sales Manager

Direct: (614) 542

- 2479

cc: J. Childress

– file JLT/R H

- 1766

- 9

T. Maurer

G. Lowry

J. Hubler
•JEPARTMENT OF 

:RANSPORTATiON 

February 8, 2012 CCKrT OPERATIONS 

Docket Management Facility l^\l FP.B ! U p \: E-Ll 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Grand Floor, Room W-120140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Sun Country slot exemption Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

To Whom It May Concern: 

We are writing in regards to Sun Country Airlines' nonstop Lansing-to-Washington, D.C. 

route that is in jeopardy of being dropped because of a federal appeals court ruling that is 

threatening to award the landing space at Reagan National Airport to another airline. 

This Sun Country direct flight from Lansing. Ml to Washington, D.C. is a very popular flight 

and provides a valuable service to people who live and wor k in these two areas of the 

country. We are concerned that if this landing spot is awarded to another airline that 

Lansing Airport wil l lose this connection. It wil l be bad for the Lansing Airport and for those 

that travel between the two cities. 

We'personally%'ve this D!C.-Lansing route to Reagan, as we have many relatives in the D.C. 

area arid it is've'ry ifonvenient to land at Reagan as opposed to Dulles, which is easily 

another hour away. We have an elderly mother (86 yrs.) who uses this flight exclusively to 

travel back and forth to visit family. Lansing is a very pleasant airport to fly in and out of 

(it is a smaller airport and everything is easier} and it delivers her straight to her 

destination. If this particular flight disappears, she wil l be reluctant to fly at all as she wil l 

no longer have the nonstop flight option that wil l take her directly to her destination on 

either end. Also, she wil l have to deal with the stress of changing planes, extra travel time to 

and from the airport, and dealing with a much larger airport, like the Detroit Metro Airport, 

or a longer drive to Dulles Airport outside of D.C. All this extra time and stress Is a real 

^concern.for^older travelers.and should_beJ:aken into consideration. ^_ 

Please do all you can to keep this Sun Country nonstop flight from Lansing to D.C. 

Thank you. 

SIncgrelv, ;^. 9-.^ ^ 

\ ' .;.-. j ^1.,;;,^^;. - ; <.\.' • ••••.v.'> ^..;f|i:>; ' M'.•;;.:i;.;.( > . . 

Lyi^afid bi^VF^r"*"=''^'^''"'••*''-"•• " "^'-^'- ^ "'' " .^M" ' ^'N ^T ' - -^:^^ 

7M'Will6 w Wood^ Circle'-' ' ' ^=^^ ''"^="" "" ''^"'- "' ' ''' ' !'"'^'' ^-''^- '' ''••'' '' ' -'' '•'''• '^ '" 

Lansing, MI 48917 

. It : ; . .:'f- ' ; ••• '. ^ • ! ';•• • ;•< / > '.'t;'-- -
# C_2015155EN.01001801.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/18

---

Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12 Kingdom of Spain v Commission

(Case C-139/15 P)

(2015/C 155/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12 Spain v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12 Spain v Commission;

Spain

Commission

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for determination, and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for determination, and

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

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal brought by the Commission concerns the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-109/12. By its judgment, the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to certain projects.

T-109/12

C(2011) 9992

The Commission relies on two grounds of appeal. Primarily, the Commission submits that the General Court committed an error of law in holding that the Commission had to adopt the decision on financial corrections within a period determined on the basis of the basic legislative act in force at the date of the hearing between the Commission and the Member State. In the alternative, the Commission submits that the General Court committed an error of law in holding that that the period imposed on the Commission for the adoption of the decision on financial corrections is a mandatory period, disregard for which constitutes infringement of an essential procedural requirement which invalidates a decision adopted outside that period.

Primarily

In the alternative

---
#### J. D. Smith Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6398.

Entry No. 723351.

Invoice dated London, England, March 1943.

Certified March 1943.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 2, 1943.

(Decided September 30, 1946)

*Jerome 6. Clifford*for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): This appeal for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concerns the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts, submitting this case, establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                          AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Frederick M. Strader, as Chief Executive Officer of United Industrial
Corporation (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

           a. the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ended September
30, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

           b. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:      November 13, 2003                         /s/ Frederick M. Strader
           ------------------                        ---------------------------
                                                     Frederick M. Strader
                                                     Chief Executive Officer





                                       44
No. 54853.

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

protest 144607-K (Buffalo).

*314Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of travertine stone similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 53963, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.