alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# State Plan Frameworks

State Acts • Alone • Compliance thr ough in-state actions with no coordination with other states. Choices . Entire responsib i lity on EGUs?

· Obligation on whom? · EE. RE. 1:1nd**oH~e.-** non·E6U**rni.'~"'Ut<.':. ?**  · Averaghg. markets? 

# •

Less Coordination 

# Specific • :: • Agreement
Ind ividual state plans with p rov isions that address specific issues. Ex
. Cross-border impncts of EE nnd RE
. 

# Service Territory Multi-state collaborati on around an existing sys te m-e.g., utility balanc i ng area or RTO/ ISO foot print. Other EGUs covered by separate p lan components. 

# Common Elements al!l 

# ••

A 

### state plan specifies criteria for recognized credits (MWh or C02) it w i ll recognize
. EGUs can use qualifying cred i ts for compliance, regardless of state of origin. 

# Regional Plan •• l:loA .



# • Regionally negoti ated compi iance plan that may include a regionally d esignated credit, admin istrative body, tracking system, exchange, and other elements.



# More Coordination

# one Compliance through in-state actions with no coordination with other states. Choices · Entire responsibility on EGUs? ·Obligation on whom? • EE, RE, and other non-EGU measures? • Averaging, markets?

# • 

# ec1 c ree en Individual state plans with provisions that address specific issues. Ex. Cross-border impacts of EE and RE.

# • 

# erv1ce • 

# err1 or Multi-state collaboration around an existing 

# system-e.g., utility balancing area or RTO/ ISO footprint. Other EGUs covered 

# by separate plan components.

# A state plan specifies criteria for recognized credits (MWh or C02) it will recognize. EGUs can use qualifying credits for compliance, regardless of state of origin.

# State Plan Frameworks

State Acts • Alone • Compliance thr ough in-state actions with no coordination with other states. Choices . Entire responsib i lity on EGUs?

· Obligation on whom? · EE. RE. 1:1nd**oH~e.-** non·E6U**rni.'~"'Ut<.':. ?**  · Averaghg. markets? 

# •

Less Coordination 

# Specific • :: • Agreement
Ind ividual state plans with p rov isions that address specific issues. Ex
. Cross-border impncts of EE nnd RE
. 

# Service Territory Multi-state collaborati on around an existing sys te m-e.g., utility balanc i ng area or RTO/ ISO foot print. Other EGUs covered by separate p lan components. 

# Common Elements al!l 

# ••

A 

### state plan specifies criteria for recognized credits (MWh or C02) it w i ll recognize
. EGUs can use qualifying cred i ts for compliance, regardless of state of origin. 

# Regional Plan •• l:loA .



# • Regionally negoti ated compi iance plan that may include a regionally d esignated credit, admin istrative body, tracking system, exchange, and other elements.



# More Coordination
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 39
          - [Docket No. FAA-2006-26112; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-35-AD; Amendment 39-14837; AD 2006-24-08]
          - RIN 2120-AA64

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The FAA is correcting airworthiness directive (AD) 2006-24-08. That AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) PW535A turbofan engines. We published that AD in the                         **Federal Register**                         on December 4, 2006 (71 FR 70284). The fuel manifold part number (P/N) 3025267-01 listed in paragraph (c) is incorrect. This document corrects that P/N. In all other respects, the original document remains the same.                    

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

Effective May 22, 2007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA, 01803; telephone (781) 238-7178; fax (781) 238-7199.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On December 4, 2006 (71 FR 70284), we published a final rule AD, FR Doc, E6-20204, in the                     **Federal Register**                    . That AD applies to P&WC PW535A turbofan engines. We need to make the following correction:                

§ 39.13 

On page 70286, in the second column, in paragraph (c), in the fourth line, “3025267-01” is corrected to read “3052627-01”.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 14, 2007.

Peter A. White,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. E7-9719 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
No. 40525.

#### Protest 798770-G of Lee & Schiffer, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of machines or parts thereof similar to those the subject of *Lee*v. *United States*(T. D. 49358). The claim at 271⁄2 percent under paragraph 372 and 3 cents per pound under section 601 (c) (7) of the Revenue Act of 1932 was therefore sustained.
No. 74-5817.

#### Hodge *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 96-445.

#### Vebeliunas *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Case No. 10,056.

#### NAUGATUCK NAV. CO. v. The RHODE ISLAND.

[See Case No. 11.745.]
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 1.3

                         FLAG LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 ADDITIONS
                                                          -----------------------
                                               BALANCE    CHARGED TO   CHARGED TO                BALANCE
                                              BEGINNING   COSTS AND      OTHER                    END OF
                                              OF PERIOD    EXPENSES     ACCOUNTS    DEDUCTIONS    PERIOD
                                              ---------   ----------   ----------   ----------   --------
                                                                 DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS
<S>                                           <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Allowance for doubtful accounts
  1998                                         $9,054        1,445            --      (1,869)     $8,630
  1999                                         $8,630           --            --      (1,803)     $6,827
  2000                                         $6,827          102            --      (1,640)     $5,289
</TABLE>
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

▲

★

▲

▲ ▲

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

10/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Oct 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
# C_2015171EN.01000501.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — European Commission v Moravia Gas Storage a.s., formerly Globula a.s., Czech Republic

(Case C-596/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - Internal market in natural gas - Obligation of natural gas undertakings - Organisation of a system of negotiated third party access to gas storage facilities - Decision of the Czech authorities - Temporary exemption for future underground gas storage facilities in Dambořice - Commission decision - Order to withdraw the exemption decision - Directives 2003/55/EC and 2009/73/EC - Temporal application))

(2015/C 171/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Moravia Gas Storage a.s., formerly Globula a.s. (represented by: P. Zákoucký and D. Koláček, advokáti), Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Globula v Commission (T-465/11, EU:T:2013:406); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Globula v Commission (T-465/11, EU:T:2013:406);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

1

---
January 10, 1939

No. 40460.

#### Protests 851804-G, etc., of Eugene Dietzgen Co., Inc.

Abstract 39993. Application by plaintiff for rehearing denied.
No. 54371.

#### Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 151860-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon, Inc.*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378) The claim at 5 percent under paragraph 34, as modified by T. D. 51802, was therefore sustained.
#### Gary L. STARK, Appellant, v. Maryanne R. STARK, Appellee.

Nos. 97-2702, 98-0137 and 98-0829.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 28, 1998.

Gary L. Stark, Delray Beach, pro se.

Ralph Mabie, Jr., of The Law Office of Mabie & Mabie, West Palm Beach, for appel-lee Maryanne R. Stark.

Stephanie A. Russo and Joel M. Weissman of Weissman & Yaffa, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee Weissman & Yaffa, P.A.

*391-393PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases the former husband appeals several post-dissolution orders which: 1) denied his various motions for contempt which were treated in part as a petition for modification of child custody; 2) awarded the former wife attorney’s fees and costs; and 3) granted the former wife’s motion for contempt. We affirm the orders appealed without further comment, with the exception of the January 1998 contempt order, which we vacate as moot.

Having satisfied our responsibility to resolve the issues raised on appeal, we could close without further remark. We write on to express our disapproval of the tactics employed equally by both parties to this appeal who have generated some 5000 pieces of paper in their protracted battle which now enters its eighth year post-dissolution. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this eight year battle is the parents’ choice of weapons: their children. Indisputably, the parents’ use of their children as vehicles for expressing their animosity toward one another will continue to have a deleterious effect on their children, a fact to which these parents appear oblivious.

We sense the trial court’s frustration over attempts to end the parties’ war through various measures including orders requiring counseling. While the trial court’s efforts to this point appear largely unsuccessful, we encourage the trial court to continue to use whatever means are available to put an end to the parents’ destructive, senseless litigation. By this opinion, we also encourage the parents to see the potential destruction they are visiting upon their children — the innocent victims of this litigational war — and to end the hostilities.

POLEN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
1)3' L/~2 -ot 

C\erk
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated: |       May 14, 2010 |   |  /s/Sean C. Cutting                                             |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                             |   | Sean C. Cutting                                                           |
|   |                                             |   | President and Chief Executive Officer                                     |
|   |                                             |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                                             |
|   |                                             |   |                                                                      |
| Dated  |       May 14, 2010 |   |  /s/Mary Dieter Smith                                                |
|   |                                             |   | Mary Dieter Smith                                                         |
|   |                                             |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                      |
|   |                                             |   | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal  Accounting Officer) |
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report of Sino Clean Energy, Inc. on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Baowen Ren, Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
  and
  (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      at the date and for the periods
indicated.
  Dated: May
      15, 2009
              
              
              /s/
      Baowen RenBaowen
      Ren
                Chief
      Executive Officer
# C_2017104EN.01000302.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — European Commission v Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others

(Case C-613/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 104/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG, Koralle Sanitärprodukte GmbH, Koninklijke Sphinx BV, Allia SAS, Produits Céramiques de Touraine SA, Pozzi Ginori SpA, Sanitec Europe Oy (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister, P. Lindfelt, advokat, and K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T-379/10 and T-381/10, EU:T:2013:457); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T-379/10 and T-381/10, EU:T:2013:457);

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Dismisses the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the cross-appeal;

| 4. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union as regards the part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T-379/10 and T-381/10, EU:T:2013:457) set aside by the present judgment; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union as regards the part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T-379/10 and T-381/10, EU:T:2013:457) set aside by the present judgment;

| 5. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

1

---
# C_2017104EN.01000501.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA v European Commission

(Case C-618/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover))

(2017/C 104/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA (represented by: M. Condinanzi, P. Ziotti and N. Vasile, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
No. 47713.

#### Protests 677178-G, etc., of Mexican American Hat Co. et al. (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of “8-bu paper hats” similar to those-involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), the claim at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.
# C_2013352EN.01002401.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/24

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 September 2013 — Scheidemann v Commission

(Case F-76/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Official - Inter-institutional transfer - Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations - Promotion - Merit points - Equal treatment - Autonomy of the institutions)

2013/C 352/45

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sabine Scheidemann (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the Commission’s decision concerning the conversion of merit points acquired in another institution and the administrative notice publishing the list of officials promoted in the 2011 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Ms Scheidemann to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Scheidemann to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.09.2012, p.41.

1

---
No. 74-5996.

#### Nowlan *v.*Nowlan.

Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 39191.

#### Protest 772243-G/83179 of Thomson Taylor & Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the record presented the laurel leaves in question were held free of duty under paragraph 1722 as claimed.
# C_2015016EN.01002302.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron

(Case C-685/13) (1)

(2015/C 016/34)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

---