alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017213EN.01002702.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Abdulkarim v Council

(Case T-304/15) (1)

1

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 213/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: G. Étienne and N. Rouam, subsequently by: G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, and finally by: S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), insofar as the applicant’s name has been entered in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria inasmuch as they relate to Mr Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria inasmuch as they relate to Mr Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Abdukarim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Abdukarim.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

1

---
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 128 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. COMMEMORATIVE DOCUMENT AUTHORIZED. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—A commemorative document in 

5 memory of the late President of the United States, Gerald 

6 Rudolph Ford, shall be printed as a House document, with 
2 

•HCON 128 EH 

1 illustrations and suitable binding, under the direction of 

2 the Joint Committee on Printing. 

3 (b) CONTENTS.—The document shall consist of the 

4 eulogies and encomiums for Gerald Rudolph Ford, as ex5 pressed in the Senate and the House of Representatives, 

6 together with the texts of each of the following: 

7 (1) The funeral ceremony at Palm Desert, Cali8 fornia. 

9 (2) The state funeral ceremony at the rotunda 

10 of the United States Capitol. 

11 (3) The national funeral service held at the 

12 Washington National Cathedral in the District of 

13 Columbia. 

14 (4) The interment ceremony at the Gerald Ford 

15 Presidential Museum, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 

16 SEC. 2. PRINTING OF DOCUMENT. 

17 In addition to the usual number of copies printed of 

18 the commemorative document under section 1, there shall 

19 be printed the lesser of— 

20 (1) 32,500 copies, of which 22,150 copies shall 

21 be for the use of the House of Representatives and 

22 10,350 copies shall be for the use of the Senate; or 

23 (2) such number of copies that does not exceed 

24 a production and printing cost of $600,000, with 
3 

•HCON 128 EH 

1 distribution of the copies to be allocated in the same 

2 proportion as described in paragraph (1). 

Passed the House of Representatives May 22, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 128 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the printing of a commemorative docuUnited States, Gerald Rudolph Ford. ment in memory of the late President of the
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 124 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 124

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2007

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace 
                      Officers' Memorial Service.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL 
              SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police 
and its auxiliary (in this resolution referred to as the ``sponsor'') 
shall be permitted to

              

 sponsor a public event, the 26th annual National Peace Officers' 
Memorial Service (in this resolution referred to as the ``event''), on 
the Capitol Grounds, in order to honor the law enforcement officers who 
died in the line of duty during 2006.
    (b) Date of Event.--The event shall be held on May 15, 2007, or on 
such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate jointly designate.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--Under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event shall be--
            (1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and
            (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The sponsor shall assume full 
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all 
activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

    Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 
sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, 
sound amplification devices, and other related structures and 
equipment, as may be required for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of John Deere Capital Corporation**

 

I, Andrew C. Traeger, Senior Vice President and Controller of John Deere Capital Corporation, certify:

 

 

A review of John Deere Capital Corporation’s activities for the period from March 2, 2016 (the date of issuance of the John Deere Owner Trust 2016 transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through October 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) and of John Deere Capital Corporation’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 2, 2016 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2016 has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, John Deere Capital Corporation has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 
| Date: January 12,   2017 | John Deere Capital   Corporation |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                          |                             |
|                          |                             |
|                          |                             |
|                          | By                               | /s/*Andrew C.   Traeger* |   |
|                          |                             | Andrew C. Traeger |
|                          |                             | Senior Vice President   and Controller |
|                               |                                  |  |  |  |

 

----
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 156TH DISTRICT COURT of BEE COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 2nd day of July,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

MELISSA ANN MERCER, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00150-CR (Tr.Ct.No. B-09-2167-0-CR-B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by this

Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 22nd day of October, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN R. MUSKOVAC, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

16 USCMA 616, 37 CMR 236

No. 20,006

April 14, 1967

*Captain John P. Gleeson,*USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Charles Freeland,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States,

Opinion of the Court

Kilday, Judge:

Appellant was arraigned before a special court-martial convened at the Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, *617South Carolina, charged with absence without leave, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886. He pleaded guilty and was found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for two months, and forfeiture of $59 per month for two months. The convening authority approved the sentence, as did the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. A board of review in the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy affirmed the finding of guilty and the sentence.

This Court granted review of the case to consider the effect of the president’s failure to instruct the members of the court as to the basis on which the bad-conduct discharge might be imposed.

The record of trial shows the president of this special court-martial gave correct advice as to the maximum imposable punishment. He did not, however, include an instruction that the bad-conduct discharge was imposable only because of two previous convictions. This was error. The infirmity contained in this record is substantially identical to that found in United States v Ferree, 16 USCMA 506, 37 CMR 126. Our opinion in that case is controlling.

The decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge' Advocate General of the Navy for action not inconsistent with this opinion.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 120 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Federal government and the 

people of the United States should honor the spirit of volunteerism 

and personal growth promoted by the Congressional Award Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2007 

Mr. AKIN (for himself, Mr. CLAY, Mr. PASTOR, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. GRAVES, and 

Mrs. EMERSON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Federal government and the people of the United States should honor 

the spirit of volunteerism and personal growth promoted 

by the Congressional Award Program. 

Whereas Congress established the Congressional Award Program as a means to honor the successful enterprises of 

service and achievement in young Americans by promoting a sense of self-confidence and enhancing problem 

solving and teamwork skills; 

Whereas President Jimmy Carter signed the Congressional 

Award Act (Public Law 96–114) into law in 1979, and 

legislation to continue the Program has been signed into 

law by succeeding Presidents, so that an ongoing publicprivate partnership to promote character and community 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 120 IH 

among young Americans from ages 14 to 24 has been established; 

Whereas a generation of young American men and women 

have participated in the Congressional Award Program 

during the formative years of their lives, learning to set 

personally challenging goals that encourage a greater 

sense of self in relation to family and society; 

Whereas the Program contributes to a greater America because participants engage in active volunteerism in support of charitable and cultural institutions in our Nation, 

seeing tangible evidence of the success resulting from 

their pursuit of engaged citizenship; 

Whereas American youth of every race, class, and ethnic 

background have the right to participate in and are honored equally under the Program based on the merits of 

their pursuits, and are demonstrating the results of this 

empowerment by becoming leaders in institutions of higher learning, government, and commerce; 

Whereas private enterprise and public officials have all been 

actively engaged in the support of the Program, providing 

inspiration and needed funding for its continuing success; 

and 

Whereas the Program enhances the lives of thousands of 

young Americans who are involved in organizations that 

profit from their participation in the Program: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Fed3 eral government and the people of the United States 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HCON 120 IH 

1 should honor the spirit of volunteerism and personal 

2 growth promoted by the Congressional Award Program. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
No. 55458.

#### Abap Importing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 165794-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited, in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION

DOMINIC BARKLEY, 

Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:10-CV-1182

JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH P. DEAVERS

WARDEN, 

CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION, 

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

On June 19, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending

that the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed. 

Although the parties were advised of the right to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed. 

The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby

DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

ALGENON L. MARBLEY

United States District Judge

Case: 2:10-cv-01182-ALM-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 07/13/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 217 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 217

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3580, the Clerk of the House 
shall make the following corrections:
            (1) In subparagraph (I) of section 402(j)(3) of the Public 
        Health Service Act, as inserted by section 801(a)(2) of the 
        bill:
                    (A) In clause (i) of such subparagraph (I), strike 
                ``drugs described in subparagraph (C)'' and insert 
                ``drugs and devices described in subparagraph (C)''.
                    (B) In clause (iii) of such subparagraph (I), 
                strike ``drugs described in subparagraph (C)'' and 
                insert ``drugs and devices described in subparagraph 
                (C)''.
            (2) In subparagraph (A) of section 505(q)(1) of the Federal 
        Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by section 914(a) of the 
        bill, add at the end the following:
                ``Consideration of the petition shall be separate and 
                apart from review and approval of any application.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 25, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 217

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  To correct technical errors in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3580.
```
# C_2016136EN.01004901.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 2 March 2016 — Loescher v Council

(Case F-84/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Union representative - Put at the disposal of a trade union or staff association - 2014 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Comparative merits - No obligation under the Staff Regulations to provide for a specific method for assessing the comparative merits of staff put at the disposal of trade union or professional associations - Taking into account of staff reports - Assessment of the level of responsibilities held - Evidence - Review of a manifest error of assessment))

(2016/C 136/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bernd Loescher (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AD 12) in the 2014 Council of the European Union promotion procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Mr Loescher is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr Loescher is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24/8/2015, p. 60.

1

---
# C_2015205EN.01001301.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 March 2015 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v INKO, Inkasso GmbH

(Case C-127/15)

(2015/C 205/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Appellant:

Respondent: INKO, Inkasso GmbH

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a debt collection agency that offers instalment agreements in connection with the professional recovery of debts on behalf of its client and that charges fees for this service that are ultimately to be borne by the debtors operating as a ‘credit intermediary’ within the meaning of Article 3(f) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a debt collection agency that offers instalment agreements in connection with the professional recovery of debts on behalf of its client and that charges fees for this service that are ultimately to be borne by the debtors operating as a ‘credit intermediary’ within the meaning of Article 3(f) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (1)?

1

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Is an instalment agreement entered into between a debtor and his creditor through the intermediation of a debt collection agency a ‘deferred payment, free of charge’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(j) of Directive 2008/48 if the debtor only undertakes therein to pay the outstanding debt and such interest and costs as he would have incurred by law in any case as a result of his default — in other words, even in the absence of such an agreement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is an instalment agreement entered into between a debtor and his creditor through the intermediation of a debt collection agency a ‘deferred payment, free of charge’ within the meaning of Article 2(2)(j) of Directive 2008/48 if the debtor only undertakes therein to pay the outstanding debt and such interest and costs as he would have incurred by law in any case as a result of his default — in other words, even in the absence of such an agreement?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

1

---
# C_2015146EN.01005001.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/50

---

Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ZZ v Entreprise Commune ECSEL

(Case F-29/15)

(2015/C 146/69)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V.A. Christianos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Entreprise Commune ECSEL

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the illegalities committed by the defendant in establishing his annual staff report for 2012

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Order the Entreprise Commune ECSEL to compensate the applicant for the non-pecuniary harm caused by all its unlawful conduct referred to in the application by paying the applicant the sum of forty thousand euros (EUR 40  000) together with interest from the day of delivery of the judgment and until its payment in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Entreprise Commune ECSEL to compensate the applicant for the non-pecuniary harm caused by all its unlawful conduct referred to in the application by paying the applicant the sum of forty thousand euros (EUR 40  000) together with interest from the day of delivery of the judgment and until its payment in full;

| — | Order the Entreprise Commune ECSEL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Entreprise Commune ECSEL to pay the costs.

---
No. 62059.

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 315438-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with'rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.