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

                    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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. EL07-57-000] 

On April 19, 2007, the Commission issued an order that instituted a proceeding in the above-referenced docket, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, regarding PJM's allocation of costs for “economic” projects. 

                    The refund effective date in the above-docketed proceedings, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-8218 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C_2016136EN.01004801.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/48

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2016 — Pujante Cuadrupani v GSA

(Case F-83/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - Recruitment - Temporary staff - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Action for annulment brought against both the dismissal decision and the confirmatory dismissal decision - Whether admissible - Third paragraph of Article 14 of the CEOS - Misuse of powers and abuse of process - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of the defence - Consultation of the Joint Evaluation Committee - Opinion based on examining written material without hearing the applicant - No infringement of the rights of the defence))

(2016/C 136/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Antonio Pujante Cuadrupani (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European GNSS Agency (represented by: O. Lambinet and D. Petrlík, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant’s probationary report and the subsequent decision of the Executive Director of the European GNSS Agency to dismiss him at the end of his probationary period.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Pujante Cuadrupani to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European GNSS Agency. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Pujante Cuadrupani to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European GNSS Agency.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015, p. 60.

1

---
# C_2016251EN.01003101.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/31

---

Order of the General Court of 11 May 2016 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-168/15) (1)

1

((EAFRD - Withdrawal of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 251/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 252 final of 26 January 2015 concerning the reduction of the interim payments relating to Greece’s rural development programme CCI 2007 GR 06 RPO 001 for the 2007-13 programming period and to the expenditure in respect of the periods from 1 January 2014 to 31 March 2014 and from 1 April 2014 to 30 June 2014.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

1

---
# C_2019220EN.01003001.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council

(Case T-434/15) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Non-contractual liability - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

(2019/C 220/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran) and the six other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, M. Malek QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the inclusion of their names on the lists set out in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), in the Annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and the other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and the other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 179 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 179

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, June 
28, 2007, or Friday, June 29, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, or until the 
time of any reassembly pursuant to

              

 section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and 
that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on Friday, June 29, 2007, 
Saturday, June 30, 2007, Sunday, July 1, 2007, or Monday, July 2, 2007, 
on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 
noon on Monday, July 9, 2007, or such other time on that day as may be 
specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to 
recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority 
Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and the 
Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place and time as they may 
designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 28, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 179

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives 
         and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 35.15



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

Citibank, National Association

388 Greenwich Street 14th floor

New York, NY 10013



|Re: | Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-NXS3
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2015 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period):

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

(b)    To the best of such officers knowledge, based on
such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



|                 
|-----------------
|February 27, 2017
|                 
|LOGO             
|BRIAN SMITH      
|Vice President   



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                           7,756
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,001
<ALLOWANCES>                                       541
<INVENTORY>                                     61,391
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,544
<PP&E>                                         265,791
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 327,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,745
<BONDS>                                        200,870
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   327,182
<SALES>                                        331,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               331,754
<CGS>                                          290,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   222
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,801)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,646)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,155)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,155)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 41995.

#### Protest 51407-G of Fred’k Loeser & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of Normandy laces similar to those involved in *Amrein*v. *United States*(T. D. 49551). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was sustained as to these articles. Articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed.
EXHIBIT 10.2





SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





This Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is by and between Unico American Corporation (“Company”) and Lester A. Aaron (“Emp1oyee”):





A. Paragraph 3.1 of the Employment Agreement between the Company and Employee which was effective as of December 15, 2007 and amended effective April 1, 2009 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:





3.1. SALARY.As compensation for the services provided by Employee under this Agreement, Company will pay Employee an annual salary of no less than $237,000 payable in accordance with Company’s usual payroll procedures.  The annual salary shall be subject to increase from time to time at the discretion of the Board of Directors of Company.





B. Paragraph 6 of the Employment Agreement between the Company and Employee which was effective as of December 15, 2007 and amended effective April 1, 2009 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:





6. TERM/TERMINATION.Employee’s employment under this Agreement shall be for a term beginning on January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2012. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be terminated at any time by Company for Cause or by Employee for other than breach of this Agreement by the Company upon thirty days written notice.  This Agreement may also be terminated by Company without Cause upon thirty days written notice or by the Employee at any time on account of the breach of this Agreement by Company; however, in either of such events, subject to the limitation described in Section 3.6,the Company shall pay Employee, as and in the manner provided in Section 3.4, all salary, bonuses and benefits as provided herein for the remainder of the term of this Agreement.





C. This Amendment is effective January 1, 2010.





D. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain unchanged.





COMPANY:


Unico American Corporation




By/s/ Cary L. Cheldin                                                       Date: March 26, 2010


Cary L. Cheldin, President & Chief Executive Officer






EMPLOYEE:




/s/  Lester A. Aaron                                                              Date: March 26, 2010


Lester A. Aaron
Opinion filed February 19, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-15-00001-CV

___________

GAY & SON MASONRY, L.P., Appellant

V.

GORMAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 91st District Court

Eastland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV1443262

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Gay & Son Masonry, L.P., has filed in this court an unopposed

motion to dismiss its appeal with prejudice. Appellant states that it “no longer 

wishes to pursue this appeal.” Appellant requests that we dismiss this appeal and 

tax the costs of appeal against the party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1.

Appellant has certified that the motion is not opposed by Appellee.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

February 19, 2015 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
Before the Second Division,

April 27, 1950

No. 54276.

#### Brown & Roese et al. *v.*United States,

protests 551776-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 12 Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, CA 958 14-1908

Dear Mr. Ching:

Thank you for your submission ofthe Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. We recognize that producing this document and the associated public inspection process represented new requirements and we appreciate your effort to meet them.

We have reviewed the submitted document and have found that it meets the minimum requirements set forth under 40 CFR Part 58.10. The comments enclosed with this letter identify several areas in the Plan where additional information is requested in order to complete the O document and fully satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58.10. Rather than attempt to resolve these data gaps in this document, we request that Sacramento Metro AQMD address the enclosed comments in next year’s annual network plan which is due on July 1, 2008.

If you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosed comments, please feel free to contact me at (415) 972-3261 or Meredith Kurpius at (415) 947-4534.

Sincerely,

Sean P. Hogan, Manager

Air Division

Technical Support Office

0

Printed on Reycted Paper
g

p

standards and emission strategy development; and 3) support air pollution research studies. This

is consistent with the definition for monitoring objectives in 40 CFR 58 Appendix

D section 1.

Tables

2 and 3 on page 6 then list the six site types (also defined in 40 CFR 58 Appendix

D

section 1) but uses the heading of “Monitoring Objective” Likely, the confusion arose because

EPA requested monitoring objective information as part of the network plan in 40 CFR 58.10

when it is really site type that is desired. One solution to clarify this point in the network plan is

to add a sentence defining “site type” at the end of the first paragraph in section 2.1 and then

change the headings in Tables

2 and 3.

Minimum monitoring requirements (section 3.0).

It would be helpful to restate the population of the Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Roseville MSA in

the first paragraph of section 3.0 since it is relevant for determining minimum monitoring

requirements.Dates (throughout document, but see annual data certification and some audit dates):Due to the timing of the submittal ofthis plan, it is difficult to determine if some ofthe dates are

meant to reflect a plan for the 2006 time period or 2007 time period. For example, in Section 6.0

the date for annual data certification is June 2006. For a plan submitted on July 1, 2007 to cover

the period ofJanuary-December, 2006 this would be acceptable. However, since the plan was

submitted almost a full year late it is difficult to interpret this and other dates. It is recommended

that future plans specify the time period that the report is intended to cover.
No. 43105.

#### Protests 931681-G, etc., of W. T. Grant Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of clothes brushes similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Heinrich, Herrmann & Weiss*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30). The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 was therefore sustained.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**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 Officer of United Air Lines, Inc.(the “Company”) certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a reviewof the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2006 of the Company (the “Report”):

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Glenn F. Tilton                             |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Glenn F. Tilton                                 |   |
| United Air Lines, Inc.                     |   |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November  14, 2006                         |   |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martin BARBOSA-FLORES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50443.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Stefanie Isser Goldblatt, Esq., Keri Curtis Axel, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Suzanne M. Lachelier, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Barbosa-Flores appeals from a sentence imposed following his guilty plea *827to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b)(2).

Barbosa-Flores, who filed his brief with this court before the Supreme Court issued its decision in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), argues that the Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional and that the enhancement of his sentence based on a prior conviction must therefore be invalidated. That argument, however, has since been overtaken by *Booker.*Barbosa-Flores’ contention that his enhancement based on a prior conviction is unconstitutional is foreclosed by this court’s case law. *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 15, n. 8 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining that a district judge’s enhancement of a sentence, based on the fact of a prior conviction under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, does not raise any Sixth Amendment problems).

Because Barbosa-Flores was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See Moreno-Hernandez,**8 (extending *Ameline’s*limited remand procedure to cases involving non-constitutional *Booker*error).

REMANDED.1

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. On remand the district court should *also*correct the judgment to exclude the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). *See United States*v. *Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000).