alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016106EN.01001002.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 14 December 2015 — Loterie Nationale — Nationale Loterij NV v Paul Adriaensen and Others

(Case C-667/15)

(2016/C 106/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Loterie Nationale — Nationale Loterij NV

Appellant:

Respondents: Paul Adriaensen, Werner De Kesel, The Right Frequency VZW

Respondents:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the application of paragraph 14 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council require that a prohibited pyramid promotional scheme exists only if the realisation of the financial promise to existing members:

1

| — | depends primarily or mostly on the direct transfer of the contributions of the new members (‘direct link’),
  or |
| --- | --- |

—

depends primarily or mostly on the direct transfer of the contributions of the new members (‘direct link’),

or

| — | does it suffice that the realisation of the financial promise to existing members depends primarily or mostly on an indirect payment through the contributions of existing members, i.e. existing members do not obtain their compensation primarily or mostly from their own sale or their own consumption of goods or services, but depend for the realisation of the financial promise primarily or mostly on the subscription and contributions of new members (‘indirect link’)? |
| --- | --- |

—

does it suffice that the realisation of the financial promise to existing members depends primarily or mostly on an indirect payment through the contributions of existing members, i.e. existing members do not obtain their compensation primarily or mostly from their own sale or their own consumption of goods or services, but depend for the realisation of the financial promise primarily or mostly on the subscription and contributions of new members (‘indirect link’)?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

1

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H on orabl e F re deri c B l ock, S eni or D i stri ctJudg e, U ni t ed S t at es ** D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T Z HO NG YO U Z HO U, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 71766 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 912- 090 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r7, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T R O T T and R A W L IN S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and B L O C K , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. ** 

# FI LED APR02 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P e t i t i one rZ hongy ou Z hou ( Z hou) c ha l l e nge s the de c i s i on of the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( B I A ) de ny i ng Z hou’ s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l, a n d r e lie f

u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e ( C A T ) . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe pe r s e c ut i on s uf f e r e d byZ hou w a s noton a c c ountof apr ot e c t e d gr ound. T he r e c or d doe s not com pel a c on cl usi on thatZ ho u’ s per se cut ors i m pu t ed an ant i -gov ernm entpo l i t i ca l o p in io n to h im . R a th e r , th e c o n f lic t b e tw e e n Z h o u a n dh is e m p lo y e rw a s p e r s o n a l. O n th is r e c o r d , th e d e n ia l o f a s y lu m m u s t s ta n d . See G u v. G on zales , 454 F . 3d 1014, 1018 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( a rt i c ul a t i ng s t a nda r d) . Z hou’ s “ f a i l ur e t o s a t i s f

ythe le s s e rs ta n d a r d o f

p r o o f r e q u ir e d to e s tab lis h e lig ib ilityf o ra s y lu m n e c e s s a r ily re sul t s i n a fa i l ure t o d em on stra t e e l i gi bi l i ty f or w i thh ol di ng of [r em ov al ] as w el l . ” Fis h e rv . I

NS , 79 F . 3d 95 5, 96 1 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( en banc).

Ne i th e rd o e s th e r e c o r d c o m p e l ac o n c l u s i o n th a tZ h o u i s e n t i t l e dt o C AT r e l i e f . A l though Z hou w a s be a t e n dur i ng hi s a rr e s t , the be a t i ng di d notr i s e t o the le v e l o f to rtu r e . See R i do re v. H older , 696 F . 3d 907, 912 ( 9th C i r . 2012) ( d e s c r ib in g to rtu r e a s “s e v e r e p h y s ic a l o rm e n ta l p a in o rs u f f e r in g ” ) ; see a l

so 8 C . F . R . § 208. 18( a ) ( 2) ( “ T ortur e i s a n e xtr e m e f orm of c rue l a nd i nhum a n tr e a tm e nt3

a nd doe s noti nc l ude l e s s e rf orm s of c rue l , i nhum a n orde gr a di ng tr e a tm e ntor p u n is h m e n t . . .” ) . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1019

CARL L. LIVESAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-97-834) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 18, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl L. Livesay, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Robert William Flynn, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Carl Livesay appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Livesay’s action for disability benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Livesay v. Apfel , No. CA-97- 834 (E.D. Va. Oct. 29, 1998). We also deny Livesay’s request inhis informal brief for a summary of the district court’s “SS Disability Decisions” for the past fifteen years. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Page **1** of **1** 

## U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Directorate for Engineering Sciences (ES)

Telephone Log

SUBJECT: E valuating B assinet / Play Yard Mattress Flatness

DATE OF MEETING: 7 April 20 10

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Han Lim , ES

LOCATION: Via Teleconference

CPS C ATTENDEE(S): Han Lim

, ES

NON

- CPSC ATTENDEE(S):

Bob Coughlin (Kids II); Mark Mendes (Kids II)

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

The teleconference started at approximately 1:30 PM Eastern Time. Mr. Coughlin and Mr.

Mendes spoke with Mr. Lim to discuss their sugges t ed alternative for evaluating bassinet / play

yard mattress flatness : the concept of a triangle probe as an alternative to measuring the

bassinet mattress flatness angle (section 7.9 of the N otice of P roposed R ulemaking ).

The Kids II representatives desc ribed the probe concept to Mr. Lim. The probe would mimic the

anthropometric mouth breadth and nose depth of the infant that could potentially become

entrapped in two mattress panels of a bassinet / play yard combination product. They suggest ed

that evalua ting the gap with such a probe is a cleaner approach and would reduce the need for

dealing with the complexities of measuring angles. A similar approach has been used on

expansion gate gaps in the ASTM F 1004 standard.

The Kids II representatives came up with some rough dimensions for the triangle. Mr. Lim said

he would study this concept with CPSC Health Sciences and Human Factors staff

.

The teleconference ended at approximately 2:00 PM Eastern Time.
# C_2015398EN.01001401.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2015 — Madaus GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen

(Case C-441/15)

(2015/C 398/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Bremen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Madaus GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bremen

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, to be interpreted as meaning that a raw material with the designation ‘DESTAB Calcium Carbonate 90SE Ultra 250’, used for the manufacture of calcium tablets in the form of simple tablets, effervescent tablets and chewable tablets, consisting of chemically defined calcium carbonate in powder form and, to improve suitability for use in tablets, modified starch, and with a starch content — determined in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 118/2010 of 9 February 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 900/2008 laying down the methods of analysis and other technical provisions necessary for the application of the arrangements for imports of certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products — of less than 5 %, is to be classified under subheading 3824 9097 990?

1

---

(1)  (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2012 L 304, p. 1).

1

---
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 12 

Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the United States Capitol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. WESTMORELAND) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the 

United States Capitol. 

Whereas the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of the fundamental legal principles of Western Civilization; and 

Whereas the Ten Commandments set forth a code of moral 

conduct, observance of which is widely acknowledged to 

promote respect for our system of laws and the good of 

society: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 12 IH 

1 (1) recognizes that the Ten Commandments are 

2 a declaration of the fundamental principles that are 

3 the cornerstone of a fair and just society; and 

4 (2) directs that a copy of the Ten Command5 ments be prominently displayed in the United States 

6 Capitol at such place and in such manner as the Ar7 chitect of the Capitol shall designate. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         168,668
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,218,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,175,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,683,112
<PP&E>                                      13,525,609
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,474,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,249,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,852,910
<BONDS>                                      3,499,469
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       307,440
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,077,246
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,249,717
<SALES>                                      9,202,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,225,186
<CGS>                                        5,989,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,083,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             141,219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,011,057
<INCOME-TAX>                                   278,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            733,057
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   733,057
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        

</TABLE>
May 25, 1948

No. 7594.

#### North *American Mercantile Co.*v. *United States.*

Entered at San Francisco, Calif. (Reap. Dec. 7566).

Motion by plaintiff.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 592 

Designating the week of November 5 through 11, 2006, as ‘‘Long-Term 

Care Awareness Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 

Mr. SANTORUM submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week of November 5 through 11, 2006, 

as ‘‘Long-Term Care Awareness Week’’. 

Whereas individuals in need of long-term care should have 

the opportunity to age with respect and dignity, selecting 

and receiving services of their choice; 

Whereas the United States should seek to ensure that the 

people of the United States who will require long-term 

care are able to preserve their independence and receive 

high-quality care, preventing considerable burdens from 

being placed on families, communities, businesses, or government programs; 

Whereas long-term care spending from all public and private 

sources was about $180,000,000,000 for persons of all 

ages in 2002 and those costs are expected to double by 

2025; 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 592 IS 

Whereas nearly 1 out of every 4 households in the United 

States provides long-term care assistance to someone 50 

years of age or older; 

Whereas a significant number of people in the United States 

are already involved in providing long-term care services 

for elderly people as well as educating and offering financial planning options, and this number will increase as 

the average age of the population of the United States 

increases; and 

Whereas the majority of the people of the United States are 

not planning for or prepared to meet their long-term care 

needs: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week of November 5 through 

3 11, 2006, as ‘‘Long-Term Care Awareness Week’’; 

4 and 

5 (2) urges the people of the United States to use 

6 this week as an opportunity to learn more about the 

7 potential risks and costs associated with long-term 

8 care and the options available to help meet their 

9 long-term care needs. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
# Official Journal L 276/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.276.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 276 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5221 October 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.276.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 276

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5221 October 2009

---

| Contents | | III   Acts adopted under the EU Treaty | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED UNDER TITLE V OF THE EU TREATY |
| | * | Council Decision 2009/747/CFSP of 14 September 2009 concerning the Staff Regulations of the European Union Satellite Centre | 1 |

Contents

III   Acts adopted under the EU Treaty

page

ACTS ADOPTED UNDER TITLE V OF THE EU TREATY

*

Council Decision 2009/747/CFSP of 14 September 2009 concerning the Staff Regulations of the European Union Satellite Centre

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.
# C_2017374EN.01002302.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/23

---

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 14 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Umweltverband WWF Österreich v Landeshauptmann von Tirol

(Case C-663/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 374/33)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

1

---
# C_2017283EN.01001201.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/12

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova and Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (C-556/15), SC Hidroelectrica SA (C-22/16)

(Joined Cases C-556/15 and C-22/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Participation of a company with a majority public shareholding in an increase in the share capital of a company in which the State is the sole shareholder or in the capital formation for a State-owned commercial company - Questions of a hypothetical nature - Insufficient information regarding the factual context - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2017/C 283/16)

Language of the cases: Romanian

Referring courts

Referring courts

Curtea de Apel Craiova, Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

Applicant:

Defendants: Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA (C-556/15), SC Hidroelectrica SA (C-22/16)

Defendants:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The requests for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Court of Appeal, Craiova, Romania), by decision of 13 October 2015, and by the Tribunalul București (District Court, Bucharest, Romania), by decision of 3 July 2015, are manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016

1

OJ C 118, 4.4.2016

---
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 8 

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the maximum amount of a 

Federal Pell Grant. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. FEINGOLD, and Mr. COLEMAN) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions 

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the maximum 

amount of a Federal Pell Grant.

Whereas public investment in higher education yields a return of several dollars for each dollar invested; 

Whereas higher education promotes economic opportunity 

and recipients of bachelor’s degrees earn 73 percent more 

in lifetime earnings than those with only a secondary 

school diploma and are also significantly less likely to be 

unemployed; 

Whereas access to a college education has become a hallmark 

of American society, and is vital to upholding our belief 

in equality of opportunity; 
2

•SRES 8 IS

Whereas for a generation, the Federal Pell Grant has served 

as an established and effective means of providing access 

to higher education; 

Whereas when viewed in constant dollars, the value of today’s 

Pell Grant maximum award has actually declined by 16 

percent since the mid 1970s; 

Whereas grant aid as a portion of student aid has fallen significantly in the past 30 years; 

Whereas in 1975, grant aid constituted approximately 80 

percent of total student aid awarded to college students 

and loans constituted only 17 percent, now this has reversed with grants making up only 38 percent, and loans 

covering 56 percent of total student aid; and 

Whereas the increasing reliance on borrowing to finance a 

higher education is particularly burdensome on low-income families and has negative consequences for the enrollment of these students. 

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) the maximum Federal Pell Grant for which 

3 a student should be eligible during award year 

4 2005–2006 should be $4,500; and 

5 (2) the authorized levels for the Federal Pell 

6 Grant maximum amount found in section 401 of the 

7 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) 

8 should be set high enough to accommodate a Fed-
3

•SRES 8 IS

1 eral Pell Grant amount of $9,000 by award year 

2 2010–2011.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0176

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NATALIE AMANDA RICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 3, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 28 2020

12/28/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0176
No. 47568.

#### Protests 952783-G, etc., of Gilbert Adrian et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 48080.

#### Protests 973549-G, etc., of De Meo Bros., Premier Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 38680 the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.