alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015213EN.01004701.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/47

---

Action brought on 20 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission

(Case F-58/15)

(2015/C 213/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision not to reimburse the medical expenses of the applicant’s spouse, under her JSIS top-up cover, and for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of the Ispra settlements office of 9 July 2014 refusing to reimburse the medical expenses set out in the applicant’s request of 3 January 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Ispra settlements office of 9 July 2014 refusing to reimburse the medical expenses set out in the applicant’s request of 3 January 2014;

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 January 2015, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 16 September 2014, supplemented by the note of 29 September 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 January 2015, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 16 September 2014, supplemented by the note of 29 September 2014;

| — | order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm incurred by the applicant;

| — | order the payment of compensation in respect of the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, evaluated on equitable principles at EUR 5  000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation in respect of the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, evaluated on equitable principles at EUR 5  000;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

---
#### Clark *versus*Joseph Viles and Isaiah Jenkins and Rufus Viles, *trustees.*

In relation to a note, given since the statute of 1844, and made payable to a married woman, the party, who would establish title in her, takes the onus of proving that it did not, in any way, come from the husband.

In a trustee suit, the holding of a chose in action, belonging to the defendant, will not charge the holder as trustee. A note, belonging to a husband, though made payable to his wife, is a chose in action.

The District Court, Rice, J. presiding, had charged Jenkins, as trustee, and discharged Viles, upon their disclosures.

The case came up on exceptions to those adjudications.

*Webster,*for plaintiff.

*Getchell,*for trustees.

*33Shepley, C. J.,

orally.—Jenkins discloses that he had collected money, upon a note, which one Bunker had given to the defendant’s wife; and that, since service of the trustee process, he had given a check for the money, payable for her use.

This payment, by means of the check, being subsequent to the service, can give him no protection. If the money belonged to Joseph Viles, the trustee is liable. Prior to the statute of 1844, for *“*securing to married women their rights in property,” such a note would clearly belong to the husband. Upon the disclosure in this case, that statute has not affected or changed the ownership of this note, for the evidence does not show that the property in it came to the wife by any legacy, or in any other way, than by or through her husband. The decision of the District Judge was correct.

*The exceptions filed by Jenkins are overruled, and he is adjudged*trustee.

Rufus Viles discloses, that the defendant and his widowed daughter left this part of the country in 1846 ; that, among the papers which they had left with the trustee, there was found a note of $300 payable by Bunker to the defendant’s wife ; that he, the trustee, wrote to her, and received a reply that Bunker had paid about $150, and that she wished him to get payment of the residue, and transmit to her a draft for it, drawn by T. W. Smith upon the Suffolk Bank ; that he sent the note to Bunker by Jenkins to be collected, and the avails transmitted as she had desired ; and that, in a few days afterwards, the trustee process was served upon him.

Upon this disclosure it does not appear that the trustee had any goods, effects, or credits of the defendant. The note was but a chose in action. It might never be collected.

The ruling of the District Court was correct.

*The exceptions filed by the plaintiff are overruled, and the trustee is discharged.*
# C_2016048EN.01010204.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/102

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — Morin v Commission

(Case F-129/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 048/121)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14/12/2015, p. 44.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 204 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 204

 Expressing the sense of the Congress that States and local political 
 subdivisions are not preempted from the enactment and enforcement of 
 immigration-related laws and ordinances that do not directly conflict 
                     with Federal immigration laws.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 5, 2007

 Mr. Marchant submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Congress that States and local political 
 subdivisions are not preempted from the enactment and enforcement of 
 immigration-related laws and ordinances that do not directly conflict 
                     with Federal immigration laws.

Whereas the city of Farmers Branch, Texas, held a referendum in May 2007 to deal 
        with the issue of illegal immigration in the city;
Whereas the voters of the city of Farmers Branch, Texas, overwhelmingly approved 
        the referendum to address the issue of illegal immigration in the city;
Whereas after the approval of this ordinance the city has had eight separate 
        lawsuits filed against it;
Whereas the city has expended nearly $500,000 in legal fees that will likely 
        increase when the city will need to retain a large outside firm or firms 
        to direct the litigation;
Whereas the primary legal question is whether the total field of immigration has 
        been preempted by the Congress; and
Whereas nothing in the current Federal law expressly and directly addresses the 
        issue of field preemption and the role of State and local governments: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that States and local political 
subdivisions are not preempted from the enactment and enforcement of 
immigration-related laws and ordinances that do not directly conflict 
with Federal immigration laws.
                                 <all>
```
120

120 120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120 120 120

120

120

120

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60 60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

POLK

DADE

COLLIER

LEE

PALM BEACH

OSCEOLA

HENDRY

GLADES

BROWARD

PASCO

HIGHLANDS

MONROE

MARTIN

HARDEE

MANATEE

DE SOTO

BREVARD

HILLSBOROUGH

OKEECHOBEE

ST LUCIE

ORANGE

SARASOTA

CHARLOTTE

INDIAN RIVER

LAKE

PINELLAS

SUMTER

HERNANDO

Tampa

Cape Coral

Miami

Palm Bay

Orlando

Lakeland

Port St. Lucie

St. Petersburg

Fort Myers

Melbourne

West Palm Beach

Sarasota

Clearwater

Boca Raton

Naples

Fort Pierce

Winter Haven

Fort Lauderdale

Bradenton

Punta Gorda

Miami Beach

 ̄ 0 4 8 12 16 2 Nautical Miles ATTENTION USER: This map is a product of the Minerals Management Service (MMS),

which is an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The mission of MMS

is to manage the mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an 

environmentally sound and safe manner and to timely collect, verify and distribute

mineral revenues from Federal and Indian lands. 

The MMS does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of this map nor assume any

reponsibility or liability for any reliance action. This map is not intended for use as

a navigational tool nor as a legal document for Federal leasing purposes.

Not For Navigational Use Straits of Florida OCS Planning Area

Legend

Federal - State Boundary

Bathymetric Contour (feet)

OCS Planning Area Boundary

National Marine Sanctuaries

National Wildlife Refuge

National Park

Coral Reefs

Military Warning Zone

Shipping Fairway

County

120

Pelican

Island

National 

Wildlife

Refuge

St. Marks

National Wildlife Refuge

320

300

280

200

400

600 800

Florida

100

120

140

160

180

Arthur

R. Marshall

Loxahatchee

National

Wildlife

Refuge

J.N. 'Ding' Darling

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Biscayne

National

Park

Federal - State Boundary

200

400

Crocodile

Lake

National

Wildlife

Refuge

600

800

Scale: 1:500,000

Florida

Panther

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Big Cypress

National

Preserve

Thousand Islands

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Everglades

National Park

National Key

Deer Refuge

Great White Heron

National Wildlife Refuge

Key West

National Wildlife Refuge

Dry

Tortugas

National 

Park

F l o r i d a K e y s N a t i o n a l M a r i n e S a n c t u a r y

400

600

800

100

120

140

160

180

200

220 240

260

280

Programmatic EIS for Outer Continental Shelf Renewable Energy and Alternate Use

Current Uses on the Outer Continental Shelf
#### Tenney *versus*Butler *and two others.*

The contending by counsel, in argument to the jury, that a certain position is a principle of law, does not of itself require the Judge to instruct the jury w 011 that point.

Assumpsit, tried before Tenney, J. The plaintiff made a claim upon an account against the thee defendants, who are alleged to be co-partners.

*270The plaintiff’s counsel, in his argument to the jury, *contended,*that less evidence was necessary to show defendants to be partners, in an action against them, than plaintiffs are required to show, when suing as co-partners ; and that, as the evidence was not in the hands of the plaintiffs, slight evidence should satisfy the jury of the fact of partnership. The jury were instructed, upon this point, that the party, upon whom is the burden of proof to establish a co-partnership of those who are the other party, must satisfy the jury of the existence of such co-partnership.

The> plaintiff excepted.

*Herbert*and *Drinkwater,*for the plaintiff.

*Hinckley,*for the defendants.

Wells, J.,

orally.—1. The plaintiff’s counsel contends that the Judge did not rightfully instruct the jury as to the amount of evidence necessary to. prove that defendants were co-partners, and that less evidence is required to prove a co-partnership among defendants than among plaintiffs in a suit.

But no request was made for instruction on that point. It is only said that the plaintiff’s counsel, in his argument to the jury, *contended*for that principle. But that is not equivalent to a request for instruction. The Judge need not instruct upon the point, unless upon a request for instruction.

2. The instruction given was clearly correct. It was no more than that the party, alleging a co-partnership, must prove it to the satisfaction of the jury. The Judge did not say how much evidence they ought to have in order to satisfy them. It was not in his province to say.

*Exceptions overruled.*
(Reap. Dec. 8830)

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 731855.

(Decided June 12, 1957)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

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

*683Rao, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that

> 1. That the merchandise here involved consists of cotton pajamas imported from England for the account of plaintiff under Entry No. 731855 dated December 17, 1940.

> 2. That said merchandise was appraised on the basis of Cost of Production of 76 shillings per dozen plus 10% plus 16%% plus 8% plus boxes and cases.

> 3. That the cost of materials and fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of exportation of the involved merchandise which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production thereof in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (not less than 10 per centum of such cost) in the case of such or similar merchandise, plus the cost of all containers and coverings, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and plus an addition for profit (not less than 8 per centum of the costs of materials and fabrication or manipulation and general expenses) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added to the cost of merchandise of the same general character by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind equal 76 shillings per dozen plus 10% plus 8% plus boxes and cases.

> 4. That the reappraisement appeal herein may be submitted upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of [the cotton pajamas appraised at 76 shillings per dozen, plus 10 per centum, plus 16% per centum, plus 8 per centum, plus boxes and cases, English currency, here involved, and that such value was 76 shillings per dozen, plus 10 per centum, plus 8 per centum, plus boxes and cases, English currency.

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

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
January 29, 2015 

Mr. Gregg Fortunato 

Memphis I Shelby County Health Department - Air Pollution Control 

814 Jefferson Ave. 

Memphis, TN 38105 

RE: Idling of Cargill equipment and monitoring 

Dear Mr. Fortunato: 

Per our phone conversations, on January 28'h, 2015, the following emission points/groups 

were idled and are no longer in production. 

Emission Unit/Group Description 

1001A EL Barqe Corn Belt Dust Collector 

1003A EL Corn Rail Scale Dust Collector 

1003B EL Corn Barge Scale Dust Collector 

1004 EL Corn Aspiration Dust Collector 

1005 EL #1 & #2 Corn Silo Vent Filter 

1006 EL #3 Corn Silo Vent Filter 

1007 EL #4 Corn Silo Vent Filter 

1008 EL #5 & #6 Corn Silo Vent Filter 

1009 EL #7 Corn Silo Vent Filter 

1010 EL #8 & #9 Corn Silo Vent Filter 

1012 EL Cracked Corn Bin Dust Collector 

2000 Steepinq Process, All Units 

3000 Millhouse, All Units 

4000 Feedhouse, All Units st Carg1ll requests that as of February 1 , 2015, the online and manual monitoring tasks for these 

emission points and groups will no longer be required to be performed. 

Please contact me at (901 )775-7085 if you have any questions. 

//~~ ~.Bioui EHS Manager 

2330 Buoy St. P.O. Box 13368 Memphis, TN 38113 901-775-5800
# C_2015302EN.01001301.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 22 May 2015 — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT and Others

(Case C-240/15)

(2015/C 302/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Appellant:

Respondents: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministry of Economy and Finance

Respondents:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the impartiality, financial autonomy and organisational independence which national regulatory authorities must be granted under Article 3 of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) and the substantial self-financing of such authorities referred to in Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC (2) preclude national legislation (such as that relevant to the present proceedings) which additionally makes such authorities subject, in general, to legislation on public finance and, in particular, to specific provisions relating to containing and streamlining expenditure incurred by public administrative authorities?

1

2

---

(1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

1

(2)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21).

2

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30414

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KIMIA JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-209-2-T

- - - - - - - - - -

June 15, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Kimia Johnson appeals his guilty plea convictions for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Johnson

argues for the first time on appeal that the Sentencing

Guidelines, which establish heavier penalties for cocaine base

offenses than for powder cocaine offenses, violate the Equal

Protection Clause.
No. 98-30414

-2-

Johnson misstates the applicable standard of review (review

is for plain error), fails to address the appeal waiver in his

appellate brief, and, regardless of the appeal waiver, ignores

this court’s well-settled case law holding that the sentencing

disparity does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. See,

e.g., United States v. Steen, 55 F.3d 1022, 1029 n.15 (5th Cir.

1995) (noting that this court and every other circuit that has

addressed this argument has rejected it). It is also wellsettled in this circuit that one panel may not overrule another

prior panel absent intervening legislation, a decision by our en

banc court, or a decision of the Supreme Court. Barber v.

Johnson, 145 F.3d 234, 237 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 119

S. Ct. 518 (1998). The appeal is frivolous and is thus

DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Counsel is warned that

pursuing frivolous appeals invites sanctions. See United States

v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
June 23, 1960

No. 64354.

Suit 5033.

#### United States *v.*Asiatic Petroleum Corp. and E. F. Philbin.

C.D. 2137. (Appeal dismissed May 3, 1960.)
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55196-55197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22187]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 77 FR 48970, August 
15, 2012.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING AND HEARING: Session I: 1 
p.m.-5 p.m., October 2, 2012; Session II: 6:30 p.m.-9 p.m., October 2, 
2012.

CHANGES TO OPEN MEETING AND HEARING: The Defense Nuclear Facilities 
Safety Board (Board) published a notice in the Federal Register of 
August 15, 2012, (77 FR 48970), concerning a two-session public meeting 
and hearing on October 2, 2012, at the Knoxville Convention Center, 701 
Henley Street, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. The Board changes that 
notice as follows: (1) The Board is postponing the hearing session 
concerning nuclear operations at existing Y-12 defense nuclear 
facilities, the effectiveness of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration's oversight for these activities, and the status of 
site-wide emergency preparedness. That session will be rescheduled as a 
separate open meeting and hearing at a time and place to be determined 
at a later date; (2) The Board will now limit the meeting and hearing 
to receive testimony regarding factors that could affect the timely 
execution and safety of the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) project. 
These factors include the Department of Energy (DOE) project team's 
strategy for identifying and resolving safety issues in a timely 
manner, the potential safety impacts of DOE's decision to accelerate 
the acquisition of select processing capabilities and defer others to a 
later date, and the potential for weaknesses in technology development 
to impact safety; (3) The Board is convening the meeting and hearing 
concerning the UPF project from 1 p.m.-5 p.m. There will be no evening 
Session. The date and place of the meeting and hearing remains 
unchanged. The public hearing portion of this proceeding is authorized 
by 42 U.S.C. 2286b.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Debra Richardson, Deputy General 
Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue 
NW.,

[[Page 55197]]

Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-
free number.

    Dated: September 4, 2012.
Peter S. Winokur,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2012-22187 Filed 9-5-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28785]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Time and Date:  Wednesday, November 17, 2010; 2 p.m.-3 p.m.

Place:  Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status:  Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information:  Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: November 9, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28785 Filed 11-10-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```