alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 27374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11189]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9009-1]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 04/29/2013 through 05/03/2013.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Due to EPA's agency-wide furlough day on Friday, May 24th and the 
Federal holiday on Monday, May 27th, all EISs must be filed with EPA by 
Thursday, May 23rd by 5:00 p.m. eastern time for publication under a 
Notice of Availability in the Federal Register for Friday, May 31st.

EIS No. 20130123, Draft Supplement, NRC, PA, GENERIC--License Renewal 
of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 49, Regarding Limerick Generating Station 
Units 1 and 2, Comment Period Ends: 06/27/2013, Contact: Leslie Perkins 
301-415-2375.
EIS No. 20130124, Draft EIS, DOE, LA, Lake Charles Carbon Capture and 
Sequestration Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/24/2013, Contact: 
Pierina Fayish 412-386-5428.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20130062, Draft EIS, USFS, NM, Roca Honda Mine Project, 
Exploration and Mine Development, Cibola National Forest, Comment 
Period Ends: 06/13/2013, Contact: Diane Tafoya 505-346-3809.
    Revision to FR Notice Published 03/15/2013; Extending Comment 
Period from 5/14/2013 to 06/13/2013.

    Dated: May 7, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-11189 Filed 5-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
# C_2015146EN.01002701.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 February 2015 — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdoenst/Douane

(Case C-91/15)

(2015/C 146/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kawasaki Motors Europe NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdoenst/Douane

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1051/2009 (1) of 3 November 2009 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 290, p. 56.

1

---
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-1692-DR), dated 04/24/2007. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Inland and Coastal Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         04/14/2007 through 04/18/2007. *Effective Date:*
                         04/24/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/25/2007. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         01/24/2008.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 04/24/2007, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Orange, Rockland, Westchester. Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): New York: Bronx, Dutchess, Putnam, Sullivan, Ulster. Connecticut: Fairfield. New Jersey: Bergen, Passaic, Sussex. Pennsylvania: Pike. The Interest Rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere:
5.750Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere:
2.875Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere:
8.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere:
5.250Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere:
4.000For Economic Injury:Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere:
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 108526 and for economic injury is 108530. Jane M. Pease, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E7-8348 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2017063EN.01000701.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/7

---

Order of the Court of 10 November 2016 — Alain Laurent Brouillard v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-590/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public service contracts - Negotiated tender procedure for the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts - Exclusion of a proposed subcontractor - Professional competence - Requirement of full legal training - Recognition of diplomas))

(2017/C 063/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (represented by: P. Vande Casteele, avocat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (J. Inghelram and S. Chantre, agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Alain Laurent Brouillard is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Alain Laurent Brouillard is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

1

---
Case No 6,907.

#### HUNTER v. KIBBE et al.

[5 McLean, 279.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

June Term, 1851.

Bilí, op Exchange — Acceptor—Presumption op Ownership.

The acceptor of a bill, which came into his possession after it had been put in circulation, is presumed to be the owner of the bill, and entitled to recover its proceeds from the drawer.

At law.

Mr. Davidson, for plaintiff.

Emmons & Tams, for defendants.

OPINION OF THE COURT. This action is brought against the drawers of a bill of exchange, for fifteen hundred dollars. The plaintiffs bring the action as acceptors of the bill. On the trial it was objected that the possession of the bill was not sufficient to show the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the action. In 2 Greenl. Ev. § 170, it is said: “Where the action is by an accommodation acceptor, against the drawer, either for money paid, or especially for not indemfiifying the plaintiff, in addition to the proof of drawing the bill, and of the absence of the consideration, the plaintiff should prove payment of the bill by himself, or some special damage or liability to costs, by reason of his acceptance.” And the case of Pfiel v. Vanbatenberg, 2 Camp. 439, and, also, Bayley, Bills & N. 304-308, are referred to. The acceptance of the bill is prima facie evidence of funds of the drawer in the hands of the acceptor. But in this case the acceptor accepted for the accommodation of the drawers. The bill was negotiated, and has come back to the acceptor. Under these circumstances, we think the possession of the bill is prima *957facie evidence of the right of the holder to sue. In the case of Dugan v. U. S., 3 Wheat. [16 U. S.] 172, the court say: “After an examination of the cases on. this subject, (which cannot, all of them, be reconciled), the court is of opinion, .that if any person who indorses a bill of exchange to another, whether for value, or for the purpose of collection, shall come to the possession thereof again, he shall be regarded, unless the contrary appear in evidence, as the bona fide holder and proprietor of such bill, ■ and shall be entitled to recover, notwithstanding there may be on it one or more indorsements in full, subsequent to the one to him, without producing any receipt or indorsement back, from either of such indorsers, whose names he may strike from the bill or not, as he may think proper.”

We think the case before us is within the above case. The possession of the bill, under the circumstances, is evidence, prima facie, of the right to sue, and to the contents of the bill. In the same section above cited, Mr. Greenleaf says: “The mere production of the bill by the plaintiff is not sufficient proof that he has paid it, unless he shows, that it was in circulation after it was accepted.” The motion to dismiss the suit is overruled.
# C_2015245EN.01000401.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Alicja Sobczyszyn v Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie

(Case C-178/15)

(2015/C 245/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alicja Sobczyszyn

Applicant:

Defendant: Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1), according to which Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks in accordance with the conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by national legislation and/or practice, be interpreted as meaning that a teacher who has taken convalescence leave as provided for in the Law of 26 January 1982 — Teachers’ Charter (Karta Nauczyciela) (Dz. U. 2014 headings 191 and 1198) also obtains a right to the annual leave provided for in the general provisions of labour law in the year in which he exercised the right to convalescence leave?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

1

---
# C_2016232EN.01001802.xml

| 27.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Atlas v EUIPO (EFEKT PERLENIA)

(Case T-298/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark EFEKT PERLENIA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 232/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Atlas sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2015 (Case R 2352/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EFEKT PERLENIA as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Atlas sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Atlas sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

1

---
# C_2017168EN.01000801.xml

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — European Ombudsman v Claire Staelen

(Case C-337/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Handling by the European Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the management of a list of suitable candidates in an open competition - Breaches of the duty to act diligently - Concept of a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ of a rule of EU law - Non-material damage - Loss of confidence in the office of the European Ombudsman))

(2017/C 168/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Ombudsman (represented initially by: G. Grill, and subsequently by L. Papadias and P. Dyrberg, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares the application made by Ms Claire Staelen in her response for the European Ombudsman to be ordered to pay her compensation in the amount of EUR 50 000 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares the application made by Ms Claire Staelen in her response for the European Ombudsman to be ordered to pay her compensation in the amount of EUR 50 000 inadmissible;

| 2. | Sets aside points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 April 2015, Staelen v Ombudsman (T-217/11, EU:T:2015:238); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets aside points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 April 2015, Staelen v Ombudsman (T-217/11, EU:T:2015:238);

| 3. | Orders the European Ombudsman to pay Ms Claire Staelen compensation in the amount of EUR 7 000; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Ombudsman to pay Ms Claire Staelen compensation in the amount of EUR 7 000;

| 4. | Orders Ms Claire Staelen to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Ombudsman in relation to the cross-appeal, dismissed by order of 29 June 2016, Ombudsman v Staelen (C-337/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:670); |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ms Claire Staelen to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Ombudsman in relation to the cross-appeal, dismissed by order of 29 June 2016, Ombudsman v Staelen (C-337/15 P, not published, EU:C:2016:670);

| 5. | Orders the European Ombudsman to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Claire Staelen in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the main appeal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the European Ombudsman to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Claire Staelen in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the main appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

JAMES O. MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0595

COMMISSIONER OF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

SOCIAL SECURITY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORAH MCCANN KING

Defendant.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the ORDER filed August 5, 2013, JUDGMENT is hereby entered

remanding this case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings.

Date: August 5, 2013 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:12-cv-00595-EAS-NMK Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/05/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906


OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Cary L. Cheldin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/  Cary L. Cheldin


Name:                    Cary L. Cheldin


Title:                      Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:                      August 13, 2010














A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and will be retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
June 28, 1967

No. 19,779.

#### United States v Robert E. Manos, SA, U. S. Navy (NCM 66-1033).

When this ease was previously before us, we concluded it was error for the convening authority to have denied the accused’s request for the attendance at his court-martial of certain witnesses in extenuation and mitigation. We nevertheless found no prejudice in light of the fact that such error went to the question of the adjudication of a punitive discharge, and we were informed on oral argument that such had been remitted. See United States v Cieslak, 13 USCMA 216, 32 CMR 216.

We are now informed that this information was erroneous. In fact, the accused’s punitive discharge was ordered into execution. In light of this development, we necessarily conclude the error was prejudicial to accused’s substantial rights and requires further action with regard to the sentence. Accordingly, our opinion and mandate in the case are modified to direct that such be accomplished.

The decision of the Board of Review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The board may disapprove the punitive discharge or order a rehearing on the sentence.

Chief Judge Quinn dissents for the reasons set forth in his concurring and dissenting opinion in United States v Manos, 17 USCMA 10, 37 CMR 274.

Motion to ( Denied June 28, 1967 No. 67-8. United States v Albert Hamburg, PFC, U. S. Army. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction Denied October 5, 1967 No. 67-13. James R. Woodard, CAPT, U. S. Army v Stanley R. Resor, Secretary of the Army.

*680• COURT OF MILITARY- APPEALS Motions for Appropriate Relief Denied ■ November 13, 1967 No. 67-15. United States y. John D. Potter,. Jr.,PFC, U. S. Marine Corps. December 19, 1967 ■ No. 67-21. United States v Gregory A. Russell, AN, U. S. Navy. ORDERED by the Court that said motion be, and the same is, hereby denied without prejudice to ráise the question at the time of appeal should the case be appealed. Motion for Review- Denied
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF UGI UTILITIES, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN
UGI UTILITIES' QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30,
1997.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000100548
<NAME> UGI UTILITIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,152
<INVENTORY>                                     18,337
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,620
<PP&E>                                         756,388
<DEPRECIATION>                                 237,402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 671,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,413
<BONDS>                                        161,126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           35,187
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,259
<OTHER-SE>                                     143,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   671,146
<SALES>                                        395,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               395,666
<CGS>                                          207,797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,599
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,681
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,918
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,918
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>There are no publicly held shares outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 23, 2009 

p1116 

Order 

 

November 23, 2009 

139589 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139589 

 COA: 292641 

Oakland CC: 2008-222619-FH 

STEPHEN HAROLD KOGOWSKI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2009 order 

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

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.