alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016383EN.01003002.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/30

---

Action brought on 22 December 2015 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-150/15)

(2016/C 383/40)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Nordh, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decisions of the EIB pronouncing the ‘dispensation from service’ of the applicant and other decisions connected with that decision, and application for compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the defendant’s decisions of 13 April 2015, 12 May 2015, 16 June 2015 and 20 October 2015 pronouncing the ‘dispensation from service’ of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decisions of 13 April 2015, 12 May 2015, 16 June 2015 and 20 October 2015 pronouncing the ‘dispensation from service’ of the applicant;

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 18 June 2015 to block the applicant’s access to his e-mail and to IT connections; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 18 June 2015 to block the applicant’s access to his e-mail and to IT connections;

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision not to give the applicant access to his salary slips and to remove him from the list of members of his staff; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision not to give the applicant access to his salary slips and to remove him from the list of members of his staff;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 950 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions and because of its failures in its duty of care and its infringements of procedural safeguards, which sum is to be paid together with interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 950 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions and because of its failures in its duty of care and its infringements of procedural safeguards, which sum is to be paid together with interest;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

____________ No. 22

- 60390 Summary Calendar

____________ Maria Del Carmen Salmeron

- Acosta; Fernando De Jesus Salmeron

- Acosta,

Petitioners ,

versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209 893 934 Agency No. A209 893 935

______________________________ Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Maria Del Carmen Salmeron

- Acosta and her son, Fernando De Jesus Salmeron

- Acosta, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir . R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 12, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-60390 Document: 00516609076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2023No. 22

- 60390

2 denial of Maria’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. Fernando is a derivative of his mother’s application for asylum.
We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s underlying decision only if it impacted the BIA’s decision , as it did here

. See Sharma v. H older , 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013). Findings of fact, including the denial of asylum and withholding of removal , are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. See Gonzales

- Veliz v. Barr , 938 F.3d 219 , 224 (5th Cir. 2019)

. Conclusions of la w are reviewed de novo. See Sharma , 729 F.3d at 411

. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s holding that Salmeron

Acosta’s proposed particular social group (PSG) of “Salvadoran females who have been victims of rape by an older man and have suffered emotional, physical[,] and physiological hardships” is not cognizable because it is impermissibly defined by the harm

. See Gonzales

- Veliz , 938 F.3d at 232. Because Salmeron

- Acosta’s failure to show a cognizable PSG is dispositive of her asylum and withholding of removal claims, see id. at 224, the rest of her issues concerning asylum and withholding of removal need not be address ed , see INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). Salmeron

- Acosta has aban doned her arguments concerning due process and prosecutorial discretion because she inadequately briefed them. See United States v. Scroggins , 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010) ; Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) ( requiring briefs to include an argument containi ng “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them , with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies ”). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED

. Case: 22-60390 Document: 00516609076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2023
## MAPS AND DATA FROM A TRENCH INVESTIGATION OF THE UTSALADY POINT FAULT, WHIDBEY ISLAND, WASHINGTON

*By*  **Samuel Y. Johnson,1 Alan R. Nelson,1
    Stephen F. Personius,1 Ray E. Wells,2 Harvey M. Kelsey,3 Brian L. Sherrod,4
    Koji Okumura,5 Rich Koehler,6 Robert Witter,6 Lee-Ann Bradley,1*and* David
J. Harding7**

**Version 1.0**

**1**U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, MS 966, Denver Federal Center, Denver,
  CO 80225**2******U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025**3** Department of Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521**4** U.S. Geological Survey at Department of Earth and Space Sciences,
  University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195**5** Department of Geography, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Hagamiyama,
  Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8522 JAPAN**6** William Lettis and Associates, Inc., Earth Science Consultants, San Rafael,
CA 94901**7** NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, Mail Code 921, Greenbelt, MD 20771-0001

---

|The text of this report is presented here in Portable Document Format. Adobe Acrobat ReaderTM (5.0 or higher) or similar software is required to view it. If
  you wish to download the latest version of Acrobat Reader free of charge, click here.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|MF-2420 PDF file (2.17 MB) | For viewing and printing.                                            
|-------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Text Only PDF file (50 KB) | (This version of the report is accessible as defined in Section 508.)



|A high-resolution plot of this publication can be purchased from Information Services, U.S. Geological Survey (1-888-ASK-USGS).
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and NoticesU.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/mf/2003/mf-2420/
Questions or Assistance: USGS Web Contact
Page Last Modified: Thr Dec  1 12:09 EDT 2016
Before the First Division,

February 11, 1942

No. 46932.

#### Protest 63793-K of H. P. Lambert Co., Inc. (Boston).

*464Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In view of the admission of the appraiser and following Abstracts 41800, 41801, and 43502 the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 718 (b) was sustained.
June 8, 2016

Mr. Stephen M. Dickson

Senior Vice President Flight Operations

Delta Air Lines

ATTN: Mr. Casey Seabright

1010 Delta Blvd, Department 027

Atlanta

, GA 30354

Dear Mr. Dickson :

We have received your June 7, 2016 corres pondence withdrawing y our January 13, 2016

, petition on behalf of Delta Air Lines for an exemption from § 91.9(a) of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations.

Your letter has been placed in the p ublic docket (No. FAA

- 2016

- 0934 ). No further action will

be taken on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

James M. Crotty

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division2

Project No.: AXX

- xx

- xxx

- E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM

- 104:TAdams:xx/xx/xx:Doc#xxxx

ARM

- 1/100/104:Program Office [or specific OPR routing symbol]

[ Insert Sty lewriter Score Here ]

[INSERT ENVELOPE ADDRESS HERE]
# C_2015178EN.01002702.xml

| 1.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/27

---

Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Council

(Case F-40/15)

(2015/C 178/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report in respect of 2013.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the appraisal report produced for the applicant in respect of 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the appraisal report produced for the applicant in respect of 2013;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.11.3


                            AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
                         MORRISON KNUDSEN CORPORATION
                    AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK OPTION PLAN


     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Morrison Knudsen Corporation (the
"Company") has heretofore established the Morrison Knudsen Corporation Amended
and Restated Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"), for the benefit of its eligible
employees and directors; and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has the authority under
Section 9.2 of the Plan to amend the Plan.

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors desires to amend the Plan to give the Board
of Directors discretion to extend the period of time for an Optionee to exercise
a Non-Qualified Stock Option following the Optionee's termination of employment
or termination of directorship with the Company;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows:

                                      1.

     A new paragraph (c) is hereby added to Section 4.5 of the Plan to read as
follows:

     (c)  Notwithstanding the above, the Board may, in its sole discretion,
          extend the period for exercising a Non-Qualified Stock Option
          following an Optionee's Termination of Employment or Termination of
          Directorship to a date not later than the earlier of (i) twelve (12)
          months from the date of the Optionee's Termination of Employment or
          Termination of Directorship and (ii) the Option's Expiration Date.

                                      2.

     Except as amended herein, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, the Board of Directors has caused this Amendment to be
executed by an officer of the Company duly authorized on this 8th day of April,
                                                              ---
1999.

                                        MORRISON KNUDSEN CORPORATION

                                        By:    /s/ Stephen G. Hanks
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            _________________________________
                                            _________________________________

                                       1
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Banc of America Merrill LynchCommercial Mortgage Inc.

Bank of America Tower

One Bryant Park

New York, New York 10036

 

Re:Annual Statement ofCompliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2016-C28Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-C28

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of February 1, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as followsas of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 22, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### Rubin Bros. Footwear *v.*United States

No. 6258.

Entry No. 741462.

Invoice dated Sao Paulo, Brazil, November 16, 1941.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 5, 1942.

(Decided February 14, 1946)

No appearance by the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

When this appeal for reappraisement was called on the calendar, no appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiff, although duly notified of the time and place thereof.

As this record contains no evidence to warrant a disturbance of the value reported by the appraiser, I find the proper value to be the appraised value.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 54859.

#### American Blueprint Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 156048-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currencies involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar *316in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currencies of the invoices covered by certain enumerated entries should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
Low Wind Speed Technology Phase II: Offshore Floating Wind Turbine Concepts: 

Fully Coupled Dynamic Response Simulations

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Project Description: Floating wind energy systems have emerged as a promising technology for 

the utilization of offshore wind resources for large-scale electricity generation near major load 

centers. Drawing upon the maturity of wind turbine technologies as well as floater technologies 

developed by the oil and gas industry, wind turbine manufacturers are developing multimegawatt 

systems for offshore operation.

This study employs dynamic response simulations to evaluate at least two floating platform 

concepts for offshore wind turbines deployed in water depths between 50 and 200 meters, a

moored spar buoy and a tension leg buoy. One component of this study is the selection of 

wind turbine, floater, mooring system, and foundation configurations based on considerations 

of reliability and economy. A second component is to propose standard theoretical and experimental methods for designing floating wind turbines for operation over extended periods in 

severe offshore environments. These methods will address stability issues that arise from 

combined turbulent wind and random wave loading.

Project Type: Conceptual Design Study

Total Project Budget: 	 $178,920

Industry Cost Share:	 $0

DOE Cost Share: 	 $178,920

Planned Project Duration: 	 August 2004–February 2006

Contacts:

NREL/Sandia Contact: MIT Contact: 

Sandy Butterfield, NREL	 Professor Paul Sclavounos, 5-320

1617 Cole Blvd.	 Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT

Golden, Colorado 80401	 77 Massachusetts Ave.

303-384-6902	 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

sandy_butterfield@nrel.gov 617-253-4364

pauls@mit.edu

Current Status: Project Underway

Floating platform concept 

illustration/simulation.

A Strong Portfolio for a Strong America • Energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy will mean a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and greater energy 

independence for America. Working with a wide array of state, community, industry, and university partners, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy invests in a diverse portfolio of energy technologies.

For more information contact EERE Information Center • 1-877-EERE-INF (1-877-337-3463) • www.eere.energy.gov

Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE national laboratory

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.

DOE/GO-102006-2206

March 2006
#### United States *v.*Melba B. Rodriguez (Alberto Sanchez)

No. 6031.

Invoice dated Reynosa, Mexico, April 13, 1943.

Certified April 27, 1943.

Entered at Hidalgo, Tex., April 30, 1943.

Entry No. 234-H.

(Decided June 22, 1944)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Orville I. Coz*for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto :

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise invoiced as 350 Paq. Chicles “Canels” 350 Kls., involved herein, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, is as follows:

> 8.90 pesos Mexican currency per package, plus Mexican stamp tax.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation. That this case is limited to the foregoing item.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise invoiced as “350 Paq. Chicles ‘Canels’ 350 Els.,” and that such value is 8.90 pesos Mexican currency per package, plus Mexican stamp tax.

Insofar as the appeal relates to all other merchandise it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2016419EN.01003902.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2016 — Bach Flower Remedies v EUIPO — Durapharma (RESCUE)

(Case T-337/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark RESCUE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(c) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd (Wimbledon, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Simandlova and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Durapharma ApS (Stenstrup, Denmark)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 2551/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Durapharma and Bach Flower Remedies.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bach Flower Remedies Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bach Flower Remedies Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---