alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016343EN.01001602.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/16

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Versailles — France) — Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

(Case C-669/15) (1)

1

((Preliminary ruling - Absence of legal framework - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court))

(2016/C 343/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF)

Applicant:

Defendant: Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Cour d'appel de Versailles (France), by decision of 8 December 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

1

---
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No. FAA - 2011 - 0453 Directorate ID: 20 08 - SW - 16 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland Model EC135 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 20 Costs : We estimate that it would take about 1⁄2 work-hour to c opy and insert the synchronization procedure into the RFM. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $850. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: Eric Haight
# C_2018042EN.01001101.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Parliament

(Case T-136/15) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Requests for quotation concerning all the lots covered by a call for tenders - Refusal to grant access - Absence of specific, individual examination of the documents requested - Exception relating to the protection of public security - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Exception relating to the protection of privacy - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - General presumption - Unreasonable workload))

(2018/C 042/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, and subsequently by M. Sfyri and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, N. Rasmussen and L. Darie, and subsequently by N. Görlitz, L. Darie and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson and N. Otte Widgren, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

(

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 13 February 2015 refusing to grant access to the requests for quotation in all lots of Call for Tenders ITS08 — External service provision for IT services 2008/S 149-199622.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v KENNETH EARL WILLIAMS, Seaman Apprentice, U. S. Navy, Appellant

9 USCMA 400, 26 CMR 180

No. 11,302

Decided June 20, 1958

*Ensign David M. Clinard,*USNR, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Craig McKee,*USN, and *Lieutenant (jg) Gailen L. Keeling,*USN, were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

Among the offenses to which the accused pleaded guilty are an unauthorized absence from his place of duty, the U. S. Naval Receiving Station, Naval Station, San Diego, California, and a breach of arrest, the limits of which were the U. S. Naval Station. He now contends that the charges are multi-plicious and that he cannot be separately punished for each offense.

The charges allege that both offenses occurred on the same day. However, that allegation alone does not necessarily establish that the two offenses are not separate. See United States v Helfrick, 9 USCMA 221, 25 CMR 483. The board of review held that since the accused’s place of duty was not the same as the area of his arrest, his unauthorized departure from the former did not necessarily prove the unauthorized departure from the latter. Nothing in the record points to a contrary conclusion. Cf. United States v Taglione, 9 USCMA 214, 25 CMR 476. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judges Latimer and Ferguson concur.
FINAL AGENDA Revised 9/9/08

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING ON 

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

BATTERY CHARGERS AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES 

Room 1E-245 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

September 12, 2008

Purpose 

During this meeting DOE will present the notice of proposed rulemaking on 

test procedures for battery chargers and external power supplies in standby 

mode and off mode as well as for multiple-output external power supplies in 

all operational modes. In addition, DOE will present the proposed reporting 

requirements for these products. This meeting is intended to familiarize 

interested stakeholders with DOE’s statutory requirements and proposed test 

procedures. 

Agenda 

 9:00 - 9:05 am Welcome

 9:05 - 9:15 am Opening Remarks and Agenda Review 

 9:15 - 9:50 am Stakeholder Opening Statements 

 9:50 -10:30 am Introduction, Background and Legal Authority 

Overview of past, current, and future battery charger and 

external power supply rulemakings, including statutory 

authority, schedules, associated documents.

 10:30 -10:45 am Battery Chargers Test Procedure: Definitions

Proposed definitions to address standby mode and off mode. 

 10:45 - 11:00 am Coffee Break 

 11:00 - 11:20 am Battery Chargers Test Procedure: Test Measurement

Proposed test measurements to address standby mode and off 

mode. 

 11:20 - 11:50 am External Power Supply Test Procedure: Scope and 

Definitions

Proposed scope and definitions to address standby mode and off 

mode as well as multiple-output external power supplies. 

 EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 13
FINAL AGENDA Revised 9/9/08

 

 11:50 - 12:20 pm External Power Supply Test Procedure: Test 

Apparatus and General Instructions

Proposed test apparatus and general instructions to address 

standby mode and off mode as well as multiple-output external 

power supplies. Amendments considered for single-voltage 

external power supplies are also discussed. 

 12:20 - 1:20 pm Break for Lunch (on your own) 

 1:20 - 2:35 pm External Power Supply Test Procedure: Test 

Measurement

Proposed test measurements to address standby mode and off 

mode as well as multiple-output external power supplies. 

Amendments considered for single-voltage external power 

supplies are also discussed. 

 2:35 - 2:50 pm Reporting Requirements

Proposed certification procedures for Class A external power 

supplies. 

 2:50 - 3:05 pm Conclusion and Closing Remarks

Discuss outstanding issues and make concluding remarks 

 3:05 pm Adjourn 

 EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 13
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ELIEZER ALMANZAR,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 130 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. Although counsel was negligent, 

Petitioner is entitled to a counsel-filed Petition for Allowance of Appeal. See

Pa.R.Crim.P. 122(B). Counsel is DIRECTED to file the already-prepared Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal within 5 days.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 113 

Recognizing the important contributions and tremendous potential of military 

ground robotics and expressing the support of the Congress for continued 

funding and development of Unmanned Ground Vehicles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 17, 2007 

Mr. CARNEY (for himself, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. 

REYES, Mr. MELANCON, Mr. MEEHAN, and Mr. DOYLE) submitted the 

following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the important contributions and tremendous potential of military ground robotics and expressing the 

support of the Congress for continued funding and development of Unmanned Ground Vehicles. 

Whereas Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) are already 

playing a critical role in ongoing operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan by providing much-needed stand-off from 

threats to United States Armed Forces, other coalition 

forces, and noncombatants, including threats posed by 

Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs); 

Whereas more than 4,000 UGVs are currently deployed in 

support of the Global War on Terror; 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 113 IH 

Whereas more than 30,000 robotic combat counter IED missions have already been performed, resulting in more 

than 11,100 neutralized IEDs; 

Whereas UGVs are routinely destroyed or damaged while engaging IEDs, clearly demonstrating the dangers that 

would otherwise be faced by Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(EOD) personnel; 

Whereas IEDs have been responsible for many of the more 

than 2,000 combat deaths in Iraq and for more than 178 

combat deaths in Afghanistan; 

Whereas increasing the number and type of personnel 

equipped with UGVs will save even more lives; 

Whereas more than 100 UGVs equipped with explosives detection capabilities have been ordered as a means to detect Vehicle Borne IEDs (VBIEDs) and explosives 

caches; 

Whereas the quantity of these UGVs that have been ordered 

does not meet the current need; 

Whereas UGVs with many promising capabilities, such as 

sniper detection robots, UGVs that weigh less than 50 

pounds and provide infantry forces with robots suitable 

for operations in urban terrain (MOUT), UGVs with 

next-generation EOD capabilities, and casualty extraction 

robots, are available or in development; and 

Whereas investment in military robotics will also yield great 

dividends for homeland security applications, State and 

local EOD, SWAT, police, and first responders: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the Congress— 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
3 

•HCON 113 IH 

1 (1) recognizes the significant and lifesaving 

2 contributions of Unmanned Ground Vehicles to cur3 rent combat operations, and 

4 (2) notes the need for increased funding for de5 velopment and deployment of UGVs. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC74 with BILLS
# C_2016106EN.01004801.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2016 –Barnett and Mogensen v Commission

(Case F-56/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - Retired officials - Retirement pensions - Article 64 of the Staff Regulations - Weightings - Annual update of weightings - Article 65(2) of the Staff Regulations - Interim update - Articles 3, 4 and 8 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Sensitivity threshold - Change in the cost of living - Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations - Decision by the legislature not to update the weightings for 2013 and 2014 - Scope - Regulation No 1416/2013 - Over-estimation of the weighting for Denmark - Reduction of the weighting through the interim update mechanism - Misuse of powers))

(2016/C 106/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Adrian Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark) and Sven-Ole Mogensen (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions to reduce the weighting applicable to the pensions of the applicants, who are resident in Denmark, as is apparent from their pension receipts for June 2014, and a claim for compensation for the non-material damage which they claim to have suffered as a result of the different and contradictory information used to support the contested decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Barnett and Mr Mogensen to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Barnett and Mr Mogensen to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015, p. 46.

1

---
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

’ the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus postjudgment interest at the rate of %, along with costs.

’ the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

’ other:

.

This action was (check one):

’ tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

’ tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

’ decided by Judge on a motion for

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:12-cv-01128-GCS-TPK Doc #: 25 Filed: 02/19/14 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

__________ DIVISION 

___________________________________ : 

 Plaintiff : 

 : 

 vs : Case Number: 

 : 

___________________________________ : 

 Defendant : 

NOTICE OF DISPOSAL PER SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO LOCAL RULES 

79.2(a)&(b) 

 The above captioned matter has been terminated on ________________________. 

 If applicable to this case, the disposal date will be six (6) months from the above 

termination date. 

Rule 79.2(a) Withdrawal by Counsel: 

All depositions, exhibits or other materials filed in an action or offered in evidence shall not be 

considered part of the pleadings in the action, and unless otherwise ordered by the Court, shall be 

withdrawn by counsel without further Order within six (6) months after final termination of the 

action. 

Rule 79.2 (b) Disposal by the Clerk 

All depositions, exhibits or other materials not withdrawn by counsel shall be disposed of by the 

Clerk as waste at the expiration of the withdrawal period. 

By: _________________ 

 Deputy Clerk 

Case: 2:12-cv-01128-GCS-TPK Doc #: 25 Filed: 02/19/14 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      Exhibit 12



                 United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
                 -----------------------------------------------

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                -------------------------------------------------


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Six Months Ended
                                                          ------------------
                                                                June 30
                                                          1999          1998
                                                          ----          ----
                                                            (In Millions)
Earnings:

<S>                                                      <C>        <C>
   Earnings before income taxes and extraordinary item   $ 1,158    $   509
   Fixed charges, from below                                 508        482
   Undistributed earnings of affiliates                      (27)       (37)
   Interest capitalized                                      (36)       (56)
                                                         -------    -------

       Earnings                                          $ 1,603    $   898
                                                         =======    =======

Fixed charges:

   Interest expense                                      $   188    $   176
   Portion of rental expense representative
       of the interest factor                                320        306
                                                         -------    -------

       Fixed charges                                     $   508    $   482
                                                         =======    =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                          3.15       1.86
                                                         =======    =======
</TABLE>
# C_2016419EN.01004001.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Alpex Pharma v EUIPO — Astex Pharmaceuticals (ASTEX)

(Case T-355/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ASTEX - Earlier EU word mark ALPEX - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alpex Pharma SA (Mezzovico-Vira, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Bacchini, M. Mazzitelli and E. Rondinelli, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Plesanton, United States)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2015 (Case R 593/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Alpex Pharma and Astex Pharmaceuticals.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Alpex Pharma, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alpex Pharma, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 11145 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JARVIS DAWKINS

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09

- CR

- 145

- 3

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jarvis Dawkins has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th
Cir. 2011). Dawkins h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief
and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 31, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-11145 Document: 00513659002 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/31/2016No. 15

- 11145

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRAN TED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-11145 Document: 00513659002 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/31/2016
Exhibit 4.1



Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


April 14, 2022


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2107


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2107 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-262745 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 





	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
L) ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 23-0474 

FILPT) 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

BILL BRENT BOKMA. 

Defendant and Appellant. 

SEP 2 7 2023 

Bowen enwood 

Clerk of S,,r rome Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Bill Brent Bokma appears on his own behalf and moves this Court for dismissal of 

his appeal due to his medical condition and his concern about his criminal case number 

being changed on his paperwork. 

Bokma appeals a July 28, 2023 Order revoking his previous sentence and imposing 

a sentence upon revocation for violations of his probation, issued in the Eighth Judicial 

District Court, Cascade County (Cause No. ADC-20-773). We point out that Bokma's 

Notice of Appeal had the incorrect cause number which the Clerk of the Supreme Court 

must correct in order to have the appropriate court record on appeal. Regardless of 

Bokma's filing, we conclude that he presents good cause for his voluntary dismissal of this 

appeal. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Bokma's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is GRANTED and this 

this appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Bill 

Brent Bokma personally. 

`e•-• 

DATED this day of September, 2023. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

09/27/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0474