alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
34326.

#### McKINNEY et al. v. BROWN et al.

Hall, Justice.

This is an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendant county commissioners from expending $37,500 of the public funds of Fulton County in an advertising campaign designed to influence the voters of Fulton County to defeat two constitutional amendments to be placed on the ballot in the November 7, 1978, general election. Appellants’ motion to expedite the appeal is granted.

The trial court refused to grant the preliminary injunction, evidently on the theory that the advertising campaign was permissible under the broad discretion of the commissioners to administer county government. We disagree and reverse.

The authority of county governments to expend public funds is enumerated in the State Constitution. Art. IX, Sec. IV, Par. Ill (Code Ann. § 2-6103); Art. IX, Sec. V, Par. II (Code Ann. § 2-6202). Expenditure of county funds to procure the passage or defeat of constitutional amendments is not specifically permitted. Further, this court has decided that an advertising campaign to influence voter approval of a constitutional amendment is not authorized as a facet of administration of county government. *Harrison v. Rainey,*227 Ga. 240 (179 SE2d 923) *(1971); DeVaughn v. Booten,*146 Ga. 836 (92 SE 629) (1917). For example, in *Harrison v. Rainey,*supra, this court disapproved use of county funds and employees to seek passage of constitutional amendments altering the *457governing body of DeKalb County.

Submitted October 30, 1978

Decided October 30, 1978.

*Sherman S. Barge,*for appellants.

*Robert Young,*for appellees.

*Trotter, Bondurant, Griffin, Miller & Hishon, Emmet J. Bondurant, William E. Hoffmann, Jr.,*amicus curiae.

The trial court erred in ruling that as a matter of law appellants were not entitled to any interlocutory relief.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
(Reap. Dec. 9868)

#### Sidney Lang Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 795344.

*589(Decided December 8, 1960)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for tbe plaintiff.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

DoNLON, Judge:

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

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between tbe parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, that tbe merchandise and tbe issues in tbe Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above are tbe same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues decided in tbe case of *Paramount Import Co. Inc. et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697, and that tbe record in said case be incorporated and made a part of tbe record herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of tbe merchandise covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated herein, less tbe additions made by tbe importer on entry because of advances by tbe Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to tbe market value or tbe price at tbe time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in tbe principal markets of tbe country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the eases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

In *Paramount Import Co., Inc., et al., supra,*tbe trial judge found that a charge paid by an American importer to a foreign commissionaire in Czechoslovakia was in fact a buying commission which, as a matter of law, was not part of dutiable export value under old section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the rule of the incorporated case on the issue of law, I find and hold that export value, as defined in old section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, prior to its amendment by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (now section 402a(d)) is the proper basis for determination of the values of this merchandise and that such values, for the respective items of merchandise, are the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry to meet advances by the appraiser covering nondutiable so-called buying commissions.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
February 19, 2013 

Mr. August J. Blake 

St. Bernard Parish Mosquito Control 

St. Bernard Parish Government 

8201 West Judge Perez Drive 

Chalmette, LA 70043 

Dear Mr Blake: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 137.53(c)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can 

not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your January 30, 2013, exemption request on behalf of St. Bernard Parish 

Government (SBPG) into the public docket (No. FAA-2005-20297), but we are unable to 

process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send 

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### In re CORONET METAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION.

No. 47350.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

Sept. 22, 1948.

*501Archibald Palmer and Sam Masia, both of New York City, for Max Bloomberg and others.

Max Schwartz and Demoo, Callahan & Morris, all of New York City, for claimants.

Robert Bassin, of Jamaica, N. Y., and •Chauncey H. Levy, of New York City, for trustee.

GALSTON, District Judge.

On cross motions there is brought up -for review an order entered by the referee . on August 19, 1948, denying the bankrupt’s - motion for an order vacating that order which directed Max Bloomberg, Leo Bloom-berg, Nathaniel P. Green and Stuart S. Gould, as officers and directors of the above named bankrupt to appear for oral examination pursuant to the federal rules of procedure in relation to the claims set forth in the proofs of debt filed by Eli D. Goldsmith, Jacob Ain, El ex Appliances, Inc. and Permaid Appliances, Inc.

It appears that the trustee in bankruptcy has opposed the claims of Goldsmith et al. who seek now to examine Bloomberg et al. to obtain evidence in support of their claims.

It is urged that the parties to be examined are not parties to the contest between the trustee and the creditors, but that is not determinative at all of the right of parties to the issue to develop such evidence as they can in support of their claims. It would seem that under the authorities, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., are applicable to bankruptcy proceedings and that the oral depositions sought here fell within the provisions of those rules. See particularly General Order 37 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. following section 53; Elias et al. v. Clarke et al., 2 Cir., 143 F.2d 640; Marx v. Chase National Bank, 2 Cir., 117 F.2d 800, and particularly Zydney v. New York Credit Men’s Association, 2 Cir., 113 F.2d 986. The referee’s order will, therefore, be affirmed, but with a modification presently to be stated.

In view of the fact thait the two groups of claimants have been in litigation in the state courts over matters relating to the affairs of the bankrupt, it would be unseemly to permit the examination of these prospective witnesses to go beyond the issues raised by the trustee’s objection to the claims of Goldsmith et al.

Hence the order of affirmance will provide that the oral depositions to be taken are to be taken before the referee and that the witnesses may 'be interrogated only as to those matters which directly are relevant and material and competent to the issues between Goldsmith et al. and the trustee.

Moreover the order shall provide that the costs of the examination of these witnesses shall in the first instance be borne by the claimants Goldsmith et al.

Settle order on notice.
132 STAT. 1530 PUBLIC LAW 115–202—JULY 23, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 446: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–169 (Comm. on Energy and Commerce). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): June 12, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): June 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–202 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified 

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 

otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

project numbered 12737, the Commission may, at the request of 

the licensee for the project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the Commission’s procedures under that 

section, extend the time period during which the licensee is required 

to commence the construction of the project for up to 3 consecutive 

2-year periods from the date of the expiration of the extension 

originally issued by the Commission. 

(b) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the period 

required for commencement of construction of the project described 

in subsection (a) has expired prior to the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the Commission may reinstate the license for the project 

effective as of the date of its expiration and the first extension 

authorized under subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of 

such expiration. 

Approved July 23, 2018. 

Effective dates. 

Time period. 

July 23, 2018 

[H.R. 446]
DRAFT AGENDA

US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP) 

OPEN MEETING 

SEPTEMBER 15-18, 2015

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/ 

DOCKET NUMBER: EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0424

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CONFERENCE CENTER LOBBY LEVEL

ONE POTOMAC YARD (SOUTH BLDG.)

2777 S. CRYSTAL DRIVE, ARLINGTON, VA 22202

“The Development of a Spatial Aquatic Model (SAM) for Pesticide Risk 

Assessment”

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda). 

Day 1 

September 15, 2015

9:00 A.M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Fred Jenkins, Ph.D.,

Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA 

9:05 A.M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Stephen Klaine, Ph.D., 

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Chair 

9:10 A.M. Welcome and Opening Remarks – EPA

9:25 A.M. EPA Presentations

10:30 A.M. Break

10:45 A.M. EPA Presentations (Cont'd)

12:00 P.M. Lunch

1:00 P.M. EPA Presentations (Cont’d)

3:00 P.M. Break

3:15 P.M. EPA Presentations (Cont’d)

5:30 P.M. Adjourn
Day 2 

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

9:00 A.M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Fred Jenkins, Ph.D.,

Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA 

9:05 A.M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Stephen Klaine, Ph.D., 

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Chair

9:10 A.M. Follow-up from the previous day presentations

9:40 A.M. Public Comments

10:30 A.M Break

10:40 A.M. Public Comments (Cont’d)

12:00 P.M. Lunch

1:00 P.M. Charge to Panel

3:00 P.M. Break

3:15 P.M. Charge to Panel

5:30 P.M. Adjourn
Day 3 

Thursday, September 17, 2015

9:00 A.M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Fred Jenkins, Ph.D.,

Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA 

9:05 A.M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Stephen Klaine, Ph.D., 

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Chair

9:10 A.M. Follow-up from the previous day discussions

9:30 A.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

10:30 A.M. Break

10:45 A.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

12:00 P.M. Lunch

1:00 P.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

3:00 P.M. Break

3:15 P.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

5:30 P.M. Adjourn

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion for one topic is 

completed, discussions for the next topic will begin. For further information, please contact 

the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Dr. Fred Jenkins, via telephone: (202) 564-

3327; fax: (202) 564-8382; or email: jenkins.fred@epa.gov
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7580

RONNIE A. VAUGHAN, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. C.O. WATTS, Augusta Correctional Center, Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00381-jlk-mfu)

Submitted: January 13, 2009 Decided: January 16, 2009

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie A. Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ronnie A. Vaughan appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

See Vaughan v. Watts , No. 7:08-cv-00381-jlk-mfu (W.D. Va. July 8, 2008). Because the district court’s dismissal was Vaughan’s third strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2000), * Vaughan may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2000). 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.

AFFIRMED

* See Vaughan v. Powell , No. 1:03-cv-898 (E.D. Va. January 24, 2005); Vaughan v. Jail Deputies , No. 1:00-cv-364 (E.D. Va. August 8, 2000).
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (#1171).                     

*Date/Time:*                         June 7, 2007; 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.                     

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 920, Virtual meeting,  Arlington, VA 22230.                     

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Mr. Tyrone Jordan, Office of the Assistant Director, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences,  National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 905,  Arlington, VA 22230, 703-292-8741.                     

*Summary Minutes:*                         May be obtained from contact person listed above.                     

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations to the National Science Foundation on major goals and policies pertaining to Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate programs and activities.                     

*Agenda:*                         Topics:                     
    - Science of Science and Innovation Policy.
    - Human and Social Dynamics Priority Area.
    - International Polar Year.
    - Division of Social & Economic Sciences: Committee of Visitors (COV) Report.
    - Initiatives for the FY 2009 OMB Budget.
    - NSTC Subcommittee on the SBE Sciences—Prospectus of Grand Challenges.
    - Briefing on IPAMM (Working Group on Impact of Proposal Award and Management Mechanisms).
    - Agenda Items for fall 2007 Meeting.

Dated: May 8, 2007. 

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

 [FR Doc. E7-9091 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
# C_2017078EN.01003101.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/31

---

Order of the General Court of 20 January 2017 — Papapanagiotou v Parliament

(Case T-351/15) (1)

1

((Public supply contracts - Tendering procedure - Office furniture - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Award criteria - Decision to cancel the tendering procedure - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 078/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Papapanagiotou AVEEA (Serres, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. Biström and S. Toliušis, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision D(2015)12887 of the Parliament of 27 April 2015, adopted in the context of tendering procedure INLO.AO-2012-017-LUX-UAGBI-02 regarding the supply of office furniture (OJ 2013/S 138-239094) and rejecting the tender submitted by Papapanagiotou.

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. | The European Parliament shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Papapanagiotou AVEEA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Parliament shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Papapanagiotou AVEEA.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

1

---
# r -C<^J]l^^^^/^^L ^ 

# Cif v o f Lebano n ^^Hosr i ^003 - /V^:?; ?

,') | \WHI I]\:\i . Su e Februarys , 201 0 Mr . Denni s J . DeVan y Essentia l Ai rServic e Division , X-5 3 Roo m 640 1 Offic e o fAviatio n Analysi s Departmen t o fTransportatio n 40 0 Sevent h Street , S . W . Washington , D . C . 2059 0 Re : Cap e Air , Inc . fo rLebanon , Ne wHampshir e Essentia l Ai rServic e Docke t OST-2003-1482 2 Dea rMr . Devaney : A t it s regularl yschedule d meetin g o n Februar y3 , 2010 , th e Lebano n Cit yCounci l unanimousl yvote d t o authoriz e a reques tt o th e U S Departmen to fTransportatio n (USDOT ) t o replac e tw o o fth e si xdail yCap e Ai rflight s t o betwee n Lebano n Municipa l Airpor t (LEB ) an d Bosto n wit h tw o dail yCap e Ai rflight s t o th e Westcheste rCount y Airpor t (HPN ) i n Whit e Plains . Thi s proposa l wil l maintai n si xdail yCap e Ai rflight s fro m Lebano n wit h n o increas e i n Essentia l Ai rServic e (EAS ) subsidy . Belo wi s th e motio n tha t wa s unanimousl ypasse d b yth e Lebano n Cit yCouncil ; MOVE D b yCouncilo rLlot-HHI , seconde d b yCouncilo rSykes , tha tth e Lebano n Cit y Coum.i l authoriz e thi s chang e i n th e sen/ic e contrac twit h Cap e Ai ran d t o replac e tw o dail y1 Mn d trip s betwee n Lebano n an d Bosto n wit h tw o dail yroun d trip s betwee n Lebano n an d Whit e Plains , an d t o authoriz e th e Airpor tManage rt o forwar d a reques t fo rsam e t o th e USDOT . Th e Cit ylook s forwar d t o you rconfirmin g thi s propose d chang e i n servic e fro m LEB . Pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t mysel fo rAirpor tManage rRichar d Dymen ti fw e ca n b e o f furthe rhelp . 

### /giincerely , Le n Jarv i Interi m Cit yManage r Cc : Richar d Dyment . Airpor t Manage r
----

Exhibit 99.4

Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount ( the"Contract") Entered into by and between BAK International (Tianjin) Ltd. (the"Guarantor") and Shenzhen Hi-Tech District Branch, Industrial Bank CO. LTD (the"Creditor") on December 25, 2009 

Main contents: 

-  Guaranty Contract number:  Xingyinshen Gaoxinqu Shouxin (baozheng)zi(2009)005; BAK  International (Tianjin) Ltd. undertakes to assume joint and several  liabilities for Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the "Obligor")’s indebtedness  towards Industrial Bank under the Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement of  Maximum Amount (reference no.: Xingyinshen Gaoxinqu Shouxinzi (2009)008) from  December 31, 2009 to December 31, 2010, and the maximum amount secured is RMB  62.5 million. **Guaranty Responsibility**: The guaranty under this Contract shall be  guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The guarantor is obligated to pay  off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including  the creditor declares the debt becomes mature in advance to its original  expiry date due to default of the obligor or the guarantor). **Scope  of Guaranty:**The guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest,  penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee  and all the expenses such as litigation cost, lawyer’s fee, notification cost  and public notice cost etc. which is incurred to the Creditor in realizing its  creditor’s right. **Guaranty period:** The guaranty  period is from the effective date of this Contract to two years after the  expiry of the term of the Credit Facility Agreement and relevant agreement  entered into under the Credit Facility Agreement. **Headlines of the articles omitted:**-  Termination and  explanation Payment on demand Declaration and  undertaking of the Guarantor Obligations of the  Guarantor Independence of  Guarantor’s obligations Continuity of Obligations  Disputation settlement  Validity Supplement articles