alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19979]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-647-000]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

July 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 17, 1997, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 
77056-5310, filed in Docket No. CP97-647-000 a request pursuant to 
Secs. 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 
157.205, 157.211) under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to 
construct and operate delivery point facilities in Yazoo County, 
Mississippi, for Part 284 transportation services by Texas Eastern, 
under Texas Eastern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-
535-000, pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA, all as more fully set forth 
in the request that is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Texas Eastern proposes to construct and operate an 8-inch tap valve 
and an 8-inch check valve to serve Mississippi Chemical Corporation 
(MCC), an industrial end-user. It is stated that MCC will also install 
a meter, interconnecting pipeline and electronic gas measurement 
equipment. It is further stated that Texas Eastern will be fully 
reimbursed for the $85,938 cost of installing the tap by MCC. It is 
asserted that Texas Eastern will use the facilities to deliver up to 80 
Mmcf on a peak day. It is further asserted that the volume of gas 
delivered to MCC will come from existing capacity and will not affect 
Texas Eastern's peak day or annual requirements. It is explained that 
the proposal is not prohibited by Texas Eastern's existing tariff and 
that Texas Eastern has sufficient capacity to accomplish the deliveries 
without detriment or disadvantage to its other customers.
    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 Sec. 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 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19979 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 40548.

#### Protest 902647-G/86655 of Automatic Electric Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Dallingeh, J.

It was stipulated that the brass frames and steel screws in question are used in the installation and construction of an electric telephone switchboard of which they become an integral part. The claim under paragraph 353 was therefore sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40517-40518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19871]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-654-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

July 23, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 18, 1997, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT), 1600 Smith Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. 
CP97-654-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 157.211, and 
157.216 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205, 157.211, and 157.216) for authorization to abandon certain 
facilities in Arkansas and construct and operate certain facilities in 
Arkansas to deliver gas to Tyson Foods, Inc. under NGT's blanket

[[Page 40518]]

certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-384-000 and CP82-384-001 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.
    NGT specifically seeks authority to replace and upgrade a delivery 
tap. Specifically, NGT seeks authority to abandon an existing 6-inch 
meter and two 1-inch regulators and install a 6-inch electronic turbine 
meter and two, 1-inch regulators in Logan county, Arkansas. No services 
will be abandoned. NGT's total cost are estimated at $8,942.
    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 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19871 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2013055EN.01002002.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/20

---

Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA v OHIM

(Case T-553/12)

2013/C 55/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by G. Barbaut, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible;

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 October 2012 in Case R 1709/2011-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 October 2012 in Case R 1709/2011-2;

| — | alter that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter that decision;

| — | order the General Court of the European Union to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the General Court of the European Union to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BATEAUX-MOUCHES’ in respect of services in Classes 39, 41 and 43 — Application for registration No 5 666 631

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the trade mark application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
No. 44401.

#### Protests 873358-G, etc., of S. H. Kress & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303) the Rockingham-ware in question was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 210 as claimed.
# C_2015138EN.01000601.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria — Portugal) — Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA v Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)

(Case C-343/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rules on mergers of public limited liability companies - Directive 78/855/EEC - Merger by acquisition - Article 19 - Effects - Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company - Infringement by the company being acquired prior to its acquisition - Administrative decision confirming infringement post-acquisition - National law - Transfer of the acquired company’s liability for administrative offences - Lawfulness))

(2015/C 138/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(1) of Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2009/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a ‘merger by acquisition’ in Article 3(1) of the directive results in the transfer to the acquiring company of the obligation to pay a fine imposed by final decision adopted after the merger by acquisition for infringements of employment law committed by the acquired company prior to that merger.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

1

---
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Logistics Agency
                        The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
                    DLA
            Search
                        Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                        Search
    Home

    What DLA Offers
    
        Excess Property Disposal

    Document Services

    Products

    Services

    Programs

    Working With DLA
    
        Applications

    Small Business

    Federal and International Cataloging

    Defense Data Standards

    Events

    Procurement Policies

    Government Programs

    Forms

    Organizations
    
        DLA Headquarters

    DLA Aviation

    DLA Disposition Services

    DLA Distribution

    DLA Energy

    DLA Land and Maritime

    DLA Troop Support

    DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM

    DLA Europe & Africa

    DLA Indo-Pacific

    Customer Support
    
        Self Help Tools

    How to Order

    Find Your Order

    Customer Facing Offices

    Training

    Brochures

    Warfighter Support

    Customer Service Management

    Careers

    About DLA
    
        Contact Us

    Locations

    Leaders

    News

    History

    Media Gallery

    DLA Campaigns  Home
  About DLA
  News
  News Article View
 News
 Questionnaire By DLA Aviation Public Affairs Office
 Angel Tree Program Questionnaire Send your message in the form below and we will get back to you as early as possible. First Name:
 

Last Name:
 

Job Title:
 

Directorate:
 

Division:
 

Organization:
 

Number of Angels Your Adopting:
 

First Time Adopting?: Yes No

Please describe your experience with Angel Tree this year:

For those who've participated in the past; how was it in comparison to years past?

Was it better? Worse?

How efficient was the process of adopting an angel?

What did you like and what could be improved upon?
 

What is your overall impression of the Angel Tree program?
 

Please provide a photo of yourself next to your gifts.

No selfies, please. This may be used in an upcoming article that reflects your participation in the Angel Tree Program.


Please email the photo(s) in a separate email to natalie.skelton@dla.mil.
Submit → Sent your message successfully!
 Error
 SHARE
 PRINT
 Contact UsSite IndexStrategic PlanDLA IG HotlineFOIANo FEAR ActWhistleblower ProtectionDLA CareersImagesWebmasterEEOSection 508Public AffairsSAPRExternal Links DisclaimerDOD Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy/SecurityUSA.govDOD Web PolicyDOD Open GovernmentPlain Language
                    Stay Connected
            
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
(Reap. Dec. 9140)

#### Charles Garcia & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 845670.

(Decided on rehearing [Reap. Dec. 9036] May 1, 1958)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, 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 the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that in the absence of any foreign, export or United States value, the value of the imported merchandise which consists of fishing lures exported from Sweden and embraced in the invoice and covered by the entry the subject of the Appeal to Reappraisement noted above is the cost of production and that such cost of production, as defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the invoice unit price less freight and insurance.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation thereof, such or similar fishing lures were not being freely offered for sale for home consumption in Sweden, or for export to the United States, or for sale in the principal markets of the United States, in accordance with the provisions of Section 402 (c) (d) (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

On the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the values of the involved fishing lures, and that such values are the invoice unit prices, less freight and insurance, as invoiced.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
EXHIBIT
10.7


 


Division
and Regional Presidents 2008 Bonus Plan


 


The Orleans Homebuilders, Inc. (the “Company”)
Division and Regional Presidents 2008 Bonus Plan (the “Bonus Plan”), adopted on
September 27, 2007, is first effective for the Company’s fiscal year ending
June 30, 2008.


 


Payments to division and regional presidents under
the Bonus Plan are calculated based upon two components: (1) a set percentage
of net income before taxes and bonuses for each president’s region or division
(as such net income may be adjusted by an amount determined by the Company’s
Compensation Committee) and (2) the product of a calculation based on division
or regional objectives and goals for the officer in question, which are
determined on an individual basis and may include all or some of the following:
the ability to manage a budget, new order levels, speculation home inventory
levels, backlog, lot development, advertising, sales office expenses, sales
commissions, warranty costs and general and administrative expenses.  Each
participant in the Bonus Plan must obtain a minimum of 75% of an objective or
goal for that objective or goal to be considered in the determination of the
bonus payable pursuant to the second part of the bonus calculation.  To
obtain the middle bonus payable for an objective or goal, the participant must
meet at least 85% of the objective or goal and to obtain the maximum bonus
payable for an objective or goal, the participant must meet 100% of the
objective or goal.  The performance objectives and personal goals are set
at a level that is projected to be attainable.


 


The Compensation Committee may increase or decrease
bonuses, as it deems prudent given the totality of the circumstances
surrounding a particular bonus award.  Payments pursuant to the Bonus Plan
are subject to a $1,000,000 limitation on the aggregate compensation (salary,
bonus and other compensation) to any one participant during any fiscal year.
No. 96-6869.

#### Abdul-Salaam *v.*Pennsylvania.

Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.