alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2013220EN.01S00301.xml

| 17.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 220/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 220/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
No. 65706.

#### Jay Willfred Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/26459 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Certification of the Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

                   I, Glenn F. Tilton, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officerof United Air Lines, Inc. (the "Company") certify that to the best of myknowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2005 of the Company (the "Report"):(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.    /s/ Glenn F. Tilton__________Glenn F. TiltonUnited Air Lines, Inc.Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 12, 2005
Case: 2:12-cv-01195-EAS-EPD Doc #: 55 Filed: 11/15/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T19:55:25-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 164 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 164

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to 
      award the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2007

  Mr. Latham submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to 
      award the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on July 17, 
2007, for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. 
Norman E. Borlaug. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be 
carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the 
Capitol may prescribe.
                                 <all>
```
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **CMBS Department**

 

MAC N9401-011

1055 10th Avenue SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 BROADWAY

NEW YORK, New York 10036-8200

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliancefor Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2016-C28, CommercialMortgage 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., as Custodian(“Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the yearending December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”):

 

(a) A review of WellsFargo’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performanceunder the Agreement 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 allof its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Gail Vannest

GAIL VANNEST

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### Jay Willfred Co. *v.*United States

No. 6751.

Entry Nos. 707240; 700546.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, August 1944, etc.

Certified August 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 25,1944, etc.

(Decided January 13, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts Í 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 here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Appendix 10.1 

PSAT Tool-Generated Tables 
Appendix 10.1 PSAT Tool-Generated Tables 

PSAT tool settings for following data table

Analysis: W20% Projected Bext | Percentage (%) 

Scenario: 2018 Future Year 

Options: One Receptor Multiple Source Regions 

Receptor: Oklahoma | WIMO1 

Source Region: Choose Manually - Kansas 

Source Category: Choose All 

Species: Choose All 

SourceName Elevated_Point LowLevel_Point Natural OnRoad NonRoad Area 

SO4 0.82830 0.01205 0.00053 0.00354 0.00370 0.28861

NO3 0.88064 0.07656 0.24784 0.27889 0.33382 0.45432

POA 0.06891 0.01586 0.01425 0.00322 0.01706 0.72098

EC 0.00427 0.00055 0.00411 0.00406 0.04027 0.39974

SOIL 0.00533 0.00099 0.00560 0.00018 0.00004 0.06360

CM 0.00246 0.00241 0.00875 0.0002 0.00007 0.11425

PSAT tool settings for following data table

Analysis: B20% Projected Bext | Percentage (%) 

Scenario: 2018 Future Year 

Options: One Receptor Multiple Source Regions 

Receptor: Oklahoma | WIMO1 

Source Region: Choose Manually - Kansas 

Source Category: Choose All 

Species: Choose All 

SourceName Elevated_Point LowLevel_Point Natural OnRoad NonRoad Area 

SO4 1.61458 0.03721 0.00101 0.00670 0.00775 0.55258

NO3 0.62199 0.11663 0.25392 0.12571 0.16863 0.18729

POA 0.35358 0.09221 0.03420 0.00750 0.04354 1.65999

EC 0.03987 0.00165 0.00716 0.00690 0.08523 0.64973

SOIL 0.03277 0.00666 0.04481 0.00038 0.00007 0.14771

CM 0.00433 0.03419 0.48872 0.00044 0.00023 0.45022
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12

                                PROMISSORY NOTE



February 25, 1999                                                    $17,500.00


     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Eric Swanson, hereby promises to pay
to the order of Sycamore Networks, Inc. (the "Company") the principal amount of
Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($17,500.00).

     All principal and accrued interest hereon shall be due and payable upon the
earlier of:

          (i)  February 25,2004; and
          (ii) The first date on which the undersigned ceases to serve as an
               employee of, or consultant to, the Company.

     The undersigned may prepay this Note, in whole or in part, at any time and
from time to time without premium or penalty.  In addition, the undesigned
agrees that he shall apply the proceeds from any sale of shares of Common Stock
of the Company to the prepayment of this Note.

     This Note shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

     Executed under seal as of the date first above written.



                                    /s/ Eric Swanson
                                    --------------------
                                    Eric Swanson
# C_2015190EN.01003901.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/39

---

Action brought on 8 April 2015 — ZZ v Court of Justice

(Case F-53/15)

(2015/C 190/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the AECE’s decision establishing the applicant’s rights to reimbursement of the annual travel expenses from the year 2014 onwards, under Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, amending the Staff Regulations and the CEOS.

Form of order sought

| — | Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul the decision fixing the amount of the reimbursement of the annual travel expenses granted to the applicant for the year 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision fixing the amount of the reimbursement of the annual travel expenses granted to the applicant for the year 2014;

| — | order the Court of Justice to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 12



       United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
                              
      Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                              
                              
<TABLE>
                                            Six Months Ended
                                                June 30

                                             1998      1997
                                             ----      ---- 
                                              (In Millions)
<S>                                         <C>       <C>
Earnings:                                                 
                                                          
   Earnings before income taxes             $ 509     $ 546
   Fixed charges, from below                  481       490
   Undistributed earnings of affiliates       (37)      (40)
   Interest capitalized                       (56)      (50)
                                             ----      ----       
       Earnings                             $ 897     $ 946
                                             ====      ====
                                                          
Fixed charges:                                            
                                                          
   Interest expense                         $ 176     $ 142
   Portion of rental expense                             
     representative of the interest factor    305       348
                                             ----      ----
                                                          
       Fixed charges                        $ 481     $ 490
                                             ====      ====
                                                          
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges           1.86      1.93
                                             ====      ====
                                                          
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMES W. RILEY,

Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Appellee. § § No. 64, 2022 § § § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § § Cr. ID No. 0004014504 (K) §

Submitted: April 27, 2022 Decided: June 9, 2022

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES

, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to

affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be

affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons cited by the Superior Court in its

February 9, 2022 order summarily dismissing the appellant’s third motion for

postconviction relief.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice
# C_2016038EN.01003701.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc. and Nike Retail B.V.

(Case C-617/15)

(2016/C 038/50)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hummel Holding A/S

Applicant:

Defendants: Nike Inc., Nike Retail B.V.

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Under which circumstances is a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary, with its seat in an EU Member State, of an undertaking that itself has no seat in the European Union to be considered as an ‘establishment’ of that undertaking within the meaning of Article 97(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark? (1)

1

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7779

DERICK DEVON MARTIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-98-18-2)

Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 16, 1999

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derick Devon Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Derick Devon Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). Martin’s case was referred to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Martin that failure

to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Martin failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Martin has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2016350EN.01000901.xml

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni v Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-240/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 3 - Impartiality and independence of the national regulatory authorities - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 12 - Administrative charges - National regulatory authority subject to provisions applicable to public finances and to provisions for limiting and streamlining public authority spending))

(2016/C 350/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

Applicant:

Defendants: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica — ISTAT, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3 of 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), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Article 12 of 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), must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that subjects a national regulatory authority, within the meaning of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, to provisions of national law applicable to public finances and, in particular, to provisions for limiting and streamlining the spending of public administrative authorities, such as those at issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9


Ms. Marianne Howatson
100 United Nations Plaza
New York, New York 10017

Dear Marianne,

         We are delighted to welcome you to the ScreamingMedia team. We believe
your background and skills will be a great fit for the company at this crucial
growth stage.

         We offer the following terms for your employment with
ScreamingMedia.Net, Inc. Your salary will be paid at the rate of $180.000 per
year. We will pay you a signing bonus of $70,000 when you accept this offer. The
company agrees to grant you a stock option to purchase 300,000 shares of the
company's Common Stock at an exercise price of $3.60 per share. The option will
vest at the rate of 36 equal monthly installments of 8,333 shares (8.345 for the
36th month). Vesting will continue for so long as you remain an employee of the
company, but will stop if your employment with the company terminates. You will
participate on standard terms in the company medical plan and future benefits as
they become available.

         If this offer is acceptable to you, please sign the attached copy of
this letter in the space provided below. Upon your signature, this letter will
act as our final and complete agreement as to the terms of your employment with
the company, and any prior agreements or understandings with respect to such
terms will be superseded. As part of our standard company policy, we ask that
all new employees sign a confidentiality agreement in the form attached to this
letter.

         We look forward to accomplishing great things with you,

                                        Very truly yours,


                                        /s/ Alan S. Ellman
                                        ------------------
                                        Alan S. Ellman
                                        President

Accepted and agreed:
Marianne Howatson
/s/ Marianne Howatson
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Updated NHTSA and EPA Responses to Interagency Line 

Item Comments on HDV Phase 2 NPRM Preamble Received 

on June 5, 2015

NHTSA and EPA Response: The agencies believe we have substantively concurred with these 

interagency recommended edits, with only minor editorial revisions for clarity.

Edits the Agencies Have Confirmed are Present in the Current Preamble File:

Page 46: Deletion in the first bullet.

Agencies have confirmed this deletion in the Preamble.

Page 48: Add a request for comment.

Agencies have confirmed that the Preamble now reads: “As discussed throughout this document, 

the agencies believe Alternative 4 has potential to be the maximum feasible alternative, however, 

based on the evidence currently before us, the agencies have outstanding questions regarding 

relative risks and benefits of that option in the timeframe envisioned. We are seeking comment 

on these relative risks and benefits.”

Page 219: EO12866 suggested edits.

Agencies have confirmed that the Preamble now reads: “The agencies also regard these 

reductions as cost-effective, even without considering payback period. The agencies estimate the 

cost per metric ton of CO2eq reduction without considering fuel savings to be $20 in 2030, and 

we estimate the cost per gallon of avoided fuel consumption to be about $0.25 per gallon, which 

compares favorably with the levels of cost effectiveness the agencies found to be reasonable for 

light duty trucks.

Footnote: “If using a cost effectiveness metric that treats fuel savings as a negative cost, net costs 

per ton of GHG emissions reduced or per gallon of avoided fuel consumption would be negative 

under the proposed standards.”

Page 219: EO12866 suggested edits

The Preamble reads: Alternative 3 is generally designed to achieve the levels of fuel 

consumption and GHG reduction that Alternative 4 would achieve, but with several years of

additional lead-time – i.e., the Alternative 3 standards would end up in the same place as the 

Alternative 4 standards, but several years later, meaning that manufacturers could, in theory, 

apply new technology at a more gradual pace and with greater flexibility. However, Alternative 

4 would provide earlier GHG benefits compared to Alternative 3.

Page 848: Technical edits to regulation.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Agencies have confirmed that the Regulation text in §1068.301 now reads: “(d) Complete the 

appropriate EPA declaration form before importing any engines or equipment. These forms may

be submitted and stored electronically and are available on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ/imports/ or by phone at 734-214-4100. Importers must keep the 

forms these records for five years and make them available promptly upon request.”