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

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23447-23448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09065]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0132; FRL-9945-08-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Louisiana; Revisions to the State Implementation Plan; Fee Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
related to the Fee Regulations section of the Louisiana SIP that were 
submitted by the State of Louisiana on February 23, 2016. The EPA has 
evaluated the SIP submittal from Louisiana and preliminarily determined 
these revisions are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air 
Act (Act or CAA). The EPA is proposing this action under section 110 of 
the Act.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2016-0132, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
donaldson.tracie@epa.gov. For additional information on how to submit 
comments see the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the 
direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracie Donaldson, 214-665-6633, 
donaldson.tracie@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment with Tracie Donaldson or Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal 
Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct 
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial

[[Page 23448]]

submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for 
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant 
adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further 
activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives relevant adverse 
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public 
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on 
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. 
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at 
this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is 
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 6, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-09065 Filed 4-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
No. 39213.

#### Protests 892316-G, etc., of Federal Syrups, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

As there was nothing to warrant disturbing the finding of the collector, the protests were overruled.
No. 39170.

#### Protest 699025-G/9851 of Aganox Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From the evidence it was held that the vegetable juice in question is more specifically provided for as waste. The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1555 was therefore sustained. *Rohner*v. *United States*(T. D. 49416) cited.
# C_2013359EN.01000902.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — Bode Chemie GmbH v OHIM — Laros (sterilina)

(Case T-114/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark sterilina - Earlier Community word and figurative marks STERILLIUM and BODE Sterillium - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 359/15

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bode Chemie GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Aicher, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laros Srl (Cremone, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2012 (Case R 2423/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bode Chemie GmbH and Laros Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bode Chemie GmbH to pay the costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred by Laros Srl for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bode Chemie GmbH to pay the costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred by Laros Srl for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

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 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Historic vehicle finds new home

By Tim Hoyle  DLA Disposition Services

                ANNISTON, Alabama  –              
Alabama residents and tourists will enjoy a piece of World War II history that left an Army historical program for a new home.

When a WWII ambulance at the Army Museum Support Center became available it was requested by Alabama’s Center of Military History, which operates the U.S. Veterans Memorial Museum in Huntsville.

Site Manager Jon Wilkey said a representative from the Center of Military History came to Anniston to check in and complete the documentation before going to the Army Museum Support Center’s storage location to load the vehicle for transport. Wilkey said it felt “outstanding” to help preserve history.

“I believe we destroy too many military artifacts that should be preserved to document our history,” Wilkey said.

For more information on the Veterans Memorial Museum, please visit its website.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
Amendment to the Fortune Brands, Inc. 1990 Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.7 
 FORTUNE BRANDS, INC. 
 1990 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Amendment 
 Section 12(a)
of the Plan is amended by replacing the first sentence with the following: 
 “In the event of any merger, consolidation, stock or other
non-cash dividend, extraordinary cash dividend, split-up, spin-off, combination or exchange of shares, reorganization or recapitalization or change in capitalization, or any other similar corporate event, the Committee may make such adjustments in
(i) the aggregate number of shares subject to the Plan and the number of shares that may be made subject to Awards to any individual Participant as set forth in Section 10(a), (ii) the number and kind of shares that are subject to any
Option (including any Option outstanding after termination of employment) and the Option price per share without any change in the aggregate Option price to be paid therefor upon exercise of the Option, (iii) the number and kind of Rights
granted or that may be granted under the Plan, (iv) the number and kind of shares of outstanding Restricted Stock, (v) the number and kind of shares of Common Stock covered by a Performance Award or Other Stock-Based Award and
(vi) the number of outstanding dividend equivalents, as the Committee shall deem appropriate in the circumstances; provided that, the Committee shall make such adjustments in the event of an equity restructuring (as defined in Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised)) as are necessary to prevent the dilution in value of a Participant’s Award.” 
  

					
		 	FORTUNE BRANDS, INC.
			
	Date: September 25, 2007	 		 	
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Mark A. Roche

		 	Its:	 	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

LS/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GARY LOWRY; MARIAN CAROL,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

YAVAPAI COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-17408

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-08025-NVW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Gary Lowry and Marian Carol appeal pro se from the district court’s

judgment in their action alleging violations of their religious freedom rights under

FILED

JAN 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LS/Research 2

federal and state law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo a grant of summary judgment. San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of

Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any ground

supported by the record, id. at 1030, and we affirm.

Summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiffs’ claims under the

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) and

Arizona law because the undisputed evidence establishes there was no substantial

burden on their exercise of religion. See id. at 1035-36 (concluding there was no

substantial burden on the exercise of religion under RLUIPA where party could file

application for zoning permit); State v. Hardesty, 214 P.3d 1004, 1007 (Ariz. 2009)

(explaining that, to establish a violation of Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion

Act, a party must establish, inter alia, that a governmental act substantially burdens

the exercise of religion). 

Summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiffs’ First Amendment

claims because the challenged zoning laws are neutral and generally applicable. 

See San Jose Christian Coll., 360 F.3d at 1030-32 (granting summary judgment

where the zoning law was neutral and generally applicable).

Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims fail because plaintiffs have failed to

identify others who were treated differently under the ordinances. See Christian
LS/Research 3

Gospel Church, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 896 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9th

Cir. 1990) (“[Any] equal protection argument requires the existence of at least two

classifications of persons which are treated differently under the law.” (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions lack merit. 

Because we affirm summary judgment on the merits, we do not address the

district court’s imposition of terminating sanctions as an alternative basis for

dismissal. 

We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order denying plaintiffs’

motion for rehearing because plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal from that

order. See TAAG Linhas Aereas de Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., 915

F.2d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir. 1990). 

AFFIRMED.
TS120961 Attachment 4 - Sanitized
No. 96-5902.

#### Bell *v.*Ohio.

Ct. App. Ohio, Scioto County. Certiorari denied.
# C_2015146EN.01000901.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/9

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 February 2015 — Iliad SA, Free infrastructure, Free SAS v European Commission, French Republic, Republic of Poland, Département des Hauts-de-Seine

(Case C-624/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - compensation for the costs of providing a public service for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network))

(2015/C 146/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Iliad SA, Free infrastructure SAS, Free SAS (represented by: T. Cabot, avocat)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Bousin, Agents), Republic of Poland, Département des Hauts-de-Seine (represented by: G. O’Mahony, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Iliad SA, Free Intrastructure SAS and Free SAS are ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission, the French Republic and the Département des Hauts-de-Seine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Iliad SA, Free Intrastructure SAS and Free SAS are ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission, the French Republic and the Département des Hauts-de-Seine.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

1

---
No. 96-7979.

#### Rivas *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 5970.

#### D. CULLOTTA & SON vs. CATHERINE PLANTING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

Syllabus.

Involves only issues of fact.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “D,”' No. 99,942. Hon. Porter. Parker, Judge.

Sol Weiss, for plaintiff and appellant.

Foster, Milling, Brian & Saal, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the- opinion and decree of the-'Court, as follows:

Plaintiff claims $405, of which $220 under a contract and $185 for damages; the whole rejected by the judge a quo.

Defendant admits $20 damages, to-wit, $15 for use of a rope and $5 for a lost pulley. It also admits the contract, but claim-s defective performance, repaired at .a cost to it of $90.75, for which it claims credit.

There was also a reconventional demand, rejected below; but as plaintiff has alone appealed and defendant has not answered we are not concerned therewith.

The evidence satisfies us that $20 is .ample compensa,tion to plaintiffs for the use of their rope and for the lost pulley; also that plaintiff’s work was defectively done and had to be corrected. But we think that the cost of correcting the defects was only $76.87 and not $90.75 as claimed.

*103Opinion and decree, February 9, 1914.

It is therefore ordered that .the judgment appealed from be amended so as to read as follows: It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiffs, D. Cullotta & Son, have judgment against defendant, Catherine Planting and Manufacturing Company for one hundred and sixty-three 13/100 dollars ($163.13) with legal interest from judicial demand and costs; and that the reconventional demand of the defendant be rejected. And as thus amended, the judgment appealed from is affirmed; defendant to pay costs of appeal, as well as the costs of the court a qua.
# C_2012194EN.01002101.xml

| 30.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/21

---

Action brought on 2 April 2012 — Investrónica v OHIM — Olympus Imaging (MICRO)

(Case T-149/12)

2012/C 194/35

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Investrónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olympus Imaging Corp. (Tokyo, Japan)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 31 January 2012 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM, in Case R 347/2011-4, and declare that, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of the Community trade mark regulation, the trade mark applicant’s appeal before OHIM ought to have been dismissed and the Opposition Division’s decision refusing trade mark application No 7 014 392‘MICRO’ (mixed) in its entirety upheld; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 31 January 2012 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM, in Case R 347/2011-4, and declare that, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of the Community trade mark regulation, the trade mark applicant’s appeal before OHIM ought to have been dismissed and the Opposition Division’s decision refusing trade mark application No 7 014 392‘MICRO’ (mixed) in its entirety upheld;

| — | order the party or parties which oppose this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties which oppose this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Olympus Imaging Corporation

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘MICRO’, in black and white, for goods in Class 9 (Application No 7 014 392)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark ‘micro’, in light blue and dark blue, for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 (Mark No 2736947)

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration of the mark applied for refused

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and decision under appeal which refused the mark applied for annulled

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Plea in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 given that there is a likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue.

Plea in law:

---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs, September 20, 2004

IN RE: ESTATE OF BARSHA ELLA ROYSTON, DECEASED

Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sullivan County

No. P-97-09062 Hon. Richard E. Ladd, Chancellor

No. E2004-00963-COA-R3-CV - FILED SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 

Appellant has appealed before final judgment was entered. We dismiss the appeal.

Tenn. R. App. P.3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed.

HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS,P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in whichCHARLES D.SUSANO,

JR., J., and D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., joined.

William Harold Royston, Appellee, pro se.

Johnny Royston, Appellant, pro se.

OPINION

This is an action brought by one of the heirs of the deceased.

The Clerk and Master entered this Order in the Estate:

In the matter of the Final Accounting in the estate of Barsha Ella Royston,

deceased, it appearing to the Clerk and Master this 16 day of February 2004 William th

Harold Royston, the Administrator of the Estate of Barsha Ellen Royston, having

made a final report, which is unexcepted to, and that the estate has been completely

administered.
-2-

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Administrator be and is hereby

discharged upon payment to the heirs of their share, and the Sureties on his bond, if

any, are also released from further obligation in connection with the matters

involved. The Administrator will pay the share of Jamie Royston and Mary Royston

into court as they cannot be located.

The personal representative charged no fee.

Apparently, this Order was furnished the appellant by certified mail which was signed

for by the Warden at Roane Mountain on February 18, 2004. On March 5, 2004, the appellant filed

what amounts to exceptions to the Report by the Clerk and Master in the Estate. Subsequently, it

appears that documentation supporting the administration of the Estate was filed by the

administrator. However, the record before us does not establish that the Court ruled on the

exceptions to the Order entered by the Clerk and Master. See, Tenn. Code Ann. § 30-2-607, and

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 53.05. 

Since the parties are pro se, we are unaware of whether the Trial Court ruled on the

exceptions to the Report by the Clerk and Master. There is no final judgment in the record. The

appeal must lie from a final Judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a).

Accordingly, we dismiss the Appeal filed by appellant.

The cost of the appeal is assessed against the appellant, Johnny Royston.

______________________________

HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS, P.J.
# C_2013226EN.01000203.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 21 May 2013 — Elcogás, S.A. v Administración del Estado and Iberdrola, S.A.

(Case C-275/13)

(2013/C 226/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo, Spain

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elcogás, S.A.

Applicant:

Defendants: Administración del Estado, Iberdrola, S.A.

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the interpretation of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning that article (in particular, the judgments in Cases C-379/98 (1) and C-206/06 (2)), mean that the annual sums allocated to Elcogás in its capacity as the owner of a particular electricity generating facility, as provided for in the extraordinary viability plans approved for Elcogás by the Council of Ministers, are to be regarded as ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources’, where those sums are collected under the general category of ‘permanent costs of the electricity system’, which are paid by all users and are transferred to undertakings in the electricity sector by means of subsequent settlements made by the Comisión Nacional de Energía (National Energy Commission) in accordance with predetermined statutory criteria, for which purpose that Commission has no margin of discretion?

1

2

---

(1)  2001, ECR I-2099.

1

(2)  2008, ECR I-5497.

2

---