alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013063EN.01001402.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/14

---

Action brought on 7 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-8/13)

2013/C 63/24

Language of the case: Slovene

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by D. Kukovec, P. Hetsch and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, (2) or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, (2) or in any case by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive;

1

2

| — | order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to make a penalty payment of EUR 10 287,36 a day, from the day on which judgment shall be given in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to make a penalty payment of EUR 10 287,36 a day, from the day on which judgment shall be given in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for transposition of the directive expired on 3 March 2011.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.

1

(2)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37.

2

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2042 

To reinstate the reporting provision relating to fees and expenses awarded 

to prevailing parties in civil actions involving the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2012 

Mr. TESTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reinstate the reporting provision relating to fees and 

expenses awarded to prevailing parties in civil actions 

involving the United States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPORTING OF FEES AND EXPENSES AWARD4 ED. 

5 Section 2412(d) of title 28, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(5) The Attorney General shall submit to Congress 

8 and make publically available online an annual report reVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:10 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2042.IS S2042

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2042 IS

1 garding the amount of fees and other expenses awarded 

2 during the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4038-4039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1985]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation

    Date and Time: Monday, March 3, 1997, 9:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m.; 
Tuesday, March 4, 1997, 9:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m.
    Place: The Latham Hotel, 3000 M. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20007
    Status: Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. Parts of 
this meeting will be closed to the public.

    Matters to be Considered: The Standards of accreditation applied to 
medical schools by a number of foreign countries and the comparability 
of those standards of accreditation applied to United States medical 
schools. Discussions of the standards of accreditation will be held in 
sessions open to the public. Discussions that focus on specific 
determinations of comparability are closed to the public in order that 
each country may be properly notified of the decision.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 481 of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, as amended in 1992 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1088), the 
Secretary established within the Department of Education the National 
Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation. The 
Committee's responsibilities are to (1) evaluate the standards of 
accreditation applied to applicant foreign medical schools; and (2) 
determine the comparability of those standards to standards for 
accreditation applied to United States medical schools.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol F. Sperry, Executive Director, 
National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation, 600 
Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 3905, ROB #3, Washington, D.C. 20202-
7563. Telephone: (202) 260-3636. Beginning Monday, February 24, 1997, 
you may call to obtain the identity of the countries whose standards 
are to be evaluated during this meeting.


[[Page 4039]]


    Dated: January 22, 1997.
David A. Longanecker,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
[FR Doc. 97-1985 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications  The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Eastern Environment Solutions, Corp.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Eastern Environment Solutions, Corp. and will be retained by Eastern Environment Solutions, Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  May 14, 2009 /s/ Yun Wang Yun Wang (Chief Executive Officer)  May 14, 2009 /s/ Jianhua Sun Jianhua Sun (Chief Financial Officer)
No. 74-5976.

#### Grisolia, aka Derossi *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (the Partnership), for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Allen D. Goodman, Chief Financial and Principal Accounting Officer of Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., the General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Allen D. GoodmanAllen D. GoodmanChief Financial and Principal Accounting Officer of Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., General Partner of the PartnershipAugust 15, 2005




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to liability under that Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except to the extend that this Exhibit 32.2 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the
Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



E-5
Home | About GAO | Contact GAO | Site Map | E-mail Updates | Help

Advanced SearchSearch Only Legal Decisions

# 

        - Reports & Testimonies
        - Legal Decisions
        - Comptroller General
        - Topic Collections
        - Careers
        - FraudNet/Reporting Fraud
        - Multimedia

# Defense Contracting Integrity: Survey on Contractor Ethics Programs (GAO-09-646SP, September 2009), an E-supplement to GAO-09-591
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40341-40342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19733]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-651-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 18, 1997, Florida Gas Transmission Company 
(FGT), 1400 Smith Street, P.O. Box 1188, Houston, Texas 77251-1188, 
filed in Docket No. CP97-651-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 
and 157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 
(18 CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to construct and operate a 
new delivery point (Hines Delivery Point) in Polk County, Florida for 
delivery of natural gas to Florida Power Corporation (FPC) under FGT's 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-553-000 pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request that is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    FGT proposes to construct, operate and own an additional delivery 
point to accommodate the transportation of natural gas for FPC on a 
self implementing basis pursuant to Subpart G of Part 284 of the 
Commission's Regulations. FGT states that, to accommodate gas 
deliveries to the proposed delivery point, FPC has acquired permanent 
firm capacity from various FGT shippers under FGT's Capacity 
Relinquishment Program in accordance with section 18 of the General 
Terms and Conditions of FGT's FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 
1.
    The proposed delivery point will include a tap at or near mile post 
6.39 on FGT's existing Agricola Lateral, approximately 0.9 mile of 
connecting line, metering and regulating facilities, electronic flow 
measurement equipment, and related appurtenant facilities for FGT to 
deliver up to 65,000 MMBtu per day and 23,725,000 MMBtu per year of gas 
to FPC. FGT states that it will be reimbursed for the construction 
costs which is estimated at $1,400,000.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for

[[Page 40342]]

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19733 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
SJGS BART Analysis - Response on Catalyst Sizing Methodology
	Norem, Nancy 
	to:
	Joe Kordzi
	10/13/2010 03:34 PM
	Cc:
	"Gannon, Maureen", mack.mcguffey, FischerDM, LucasKJ, ChangYF
	Show Details



History:	This message has been forwarded.




Joe,
 
Attached [Attachment 1 Ceram Quote.pdf, Attachment 2 Harding Street Fuel Data.pdf, AI E-21 101012c.pdf] is the information on the catalyst sizing.
 
Nancy Norem
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000721602
<NAME> THT INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,200,005
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,562,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,925,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,256,526
<PP&E>                                       6,734,994
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,274,325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,487,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,099,477
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,826
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,055,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,487,480
<SALES>                                     19,701,292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,701,292
<CGS>                                       12,817,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,573,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               131,688
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,948,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,905,090
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,119,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,786,090
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,786,090
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014395EN.01004001.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — Giorgis v OHIM — Comigel (Shape of two packaged goblets)

(Case T-474/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of two packaged goblets - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2014/C 395/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Giorgis (Milan, Italy) (represented by: I. Prado and A. Tornato, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Comigel SAS (Saint-Julien-lès-Metz, France) (represented by: S. Guerlain, J. Armengaud and C. Mateu, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 July 2012 (Case R 1301/2011-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Comigel SAS and Mr Giorgio Giorgis.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Giorgio Giorgis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Giorgio Giorgis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

---
# Memorandum U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Subject: Jet Operation Ratios Date: March 2007
From: Miguel Vasconcelos AAS-400 Reply to Attn. of: To: Memo to File
Ajet operation level of 18,000 annual operations or 11% of total operations at SMO are not unlike jet operations elsewhere. There is nothing unusual about this. Many reliever and GA airports, including many with 5,000-foot runways like SMO, have similar or larger ratios ofjet operations ratios. As shown by these examples:
• Chicago Executive (PWK) 30% oftotal operations arejets. Chicago ADO, June 1,2007. • Hanscom (BED) 18% oftotal operations arejets. Bushnell, Davis. Hanscom Jet Flights Rise 8.9 Percent, Noise Complaints Drop. Boston Globe, January 30, 2005. • Stuart (SUA) 13% of total operations arejets. FAA, Orlando ADO. • Scottsdale Airport (SDL) 11% of total operations arejets. Scottsdale Airport 14 CFR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update, Table 2N, p. 2-15 and Exhibit 2G. 

### • Santa Monica (SMO) 11% 

### oftotal operations arejets. • Van Nuys (VNY) 10% of total operations arejets. Van Nuys Airport Part 161 Study, Context, Scope and Schedule, LAWA, March 6, 2006. • Centennial Airport (APA) 7.5% of total operations arejets. Centennial Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Exposures & Land Use Compatibility Study Program, Table C3, p. C.32. • Ft. Lauderdale Exec (FXE) 8.7% oftotal operations arejets. Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport Part 150 Noise Compatibility Planning Study Update, December 2002, p. 131. • Collin Co. Regional (TKI) 8.1% of total operations arejets. http://mastelplan.mckinneytexas. orglAssoc iationsl 12S/data/forms/Z 40104-Final%20CH%202%20. doc • Ohio State University (OSU) 8.0% oftotal operations arejets. http://osua irport. orgldeve I opmen tlmasterplan

_binlchapterlforecast. pdf
EXHIBIT



# I IJ6
# C_2015213EN.01000801.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 May 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-674/13) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid incompatible with the internal market - Parcel service market - Commission decision - Obligation to recover the aid in full and to amend the scheme for the future - Measures to be taken - Article 108(2)TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 14(3)))

(2015/C 213/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents,

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by refusing autonomously to delimit the market at issue in the context of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 concerning measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG, in order to ascertain whether the parcel delivery service from one undertaking to another constituted, between 2003 and 2012, on the one hand, and with effect from 2012, on the other, a separate market in the goods at issue, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 108(2) TFEU and 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU], and Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by refusing autonomously to delimit the market at issue in the context of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 concerning measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG, in order to ascertain whether the parcel delivery service from one undertaking to another constituted, between 2003 and 2012, on the one hand, and with effect from 2012, on the other, a separate market in the goods at issue, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 108(2) TFEU and 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU], and Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of that decision;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
No. 96-5330.

#### Love *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
# C_2012273EN.01002306.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/23

---

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Gas v OHIM — Grotto (BLUE JEAN GAS)

(Case T-93/12) (1)

1

2012/C 273/44

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

1

---
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. David SOTO, Appellee.

No. 98-215.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Maya Saxena, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Lisa Walsh, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Davis v. State,*661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995); *Neal v. State,*688 So.2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA), *rev. denied,*698 So.2d 543 (Fla.1997); *State v. Valdes,*677 So.2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); *State v. Rodriguez,*673 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
# C_2015065EN.01001001.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

(Case C-470/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Contracts falling below the threshold laid down in Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Applicability - Certain cross-border interest - Grounds for exclusion from a tendering procedure - Exclusion of an economic operator having committed an infringement of national competition rules, established by a judgment given not more than five years ago - Lawfulness - Proportionality))

(2015/C 065/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt

Applicant:

Defendant: Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU do not preclude the application of national legislation excluding the participation in a tendering procedure of an economic operator who has committed an infringement of competition law, established by a judicial decision having the force of res judicata, for which a fine was imposed.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

1

---