alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013123EN.01001202.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/12

---

Action brought on 20 February 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-86/13)

2013/C 123/19

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Council’s decision of 20 December 2012 by which it refused to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Council’s decision of 20 December 2012 by which it refused to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto;

| — | order Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission relies on three pleas in law in support of its action.

The first plea alleges infringement of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1, 3 and 10 of Annex XI to the Regulations, in that, in the absence of any proposal by the Commission to apply the exception clause in Article 10 of Annex XI, the Council was required to adopt, before 31 December 2012, the proposal for the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union submitted by the Commission, in accordance with Article 3 of Annex XI. The Council does not have the authority to adopt a decision applying, in essence, Article 10, without an appropriate Commission proposal or without the participation of the Parliament, its co-legislator under Article 10.

The second plea alleges infringement of Article 64 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI thereto, in that the Council failed to adopt, even though required to do so, the new correction coefficients to be applied to remuneration and pensions, which were proposed by the Commission in order to ensure equal treatment as between officials and pensioners irrespective of their place of employment or residence, as the case may be.

The third plea alleges complete failure to state reasons, since the Council simply stated that the qualified majority necessary for the adoption the Commission’s proposal in accordance with Article 3 of Annex XI was not reached, without explaining why it had disregarded the proposal. This plea is directed at both the adjustment of remuneration and pensions and the adoption of new correction coefficients.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 3, 2017

a0925 

# Order

Clerk October 3, 2017

153696

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153696

COA: 325449

Gratiot CC: 14

- 007061

- FH

DAVID ALLEN SNYDER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 18, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing t o this Court that the

case of People v Temelkoski (Docket No. 150643) is pending on appeal before this Court

and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be hel d in ABEYANCE pending the

decision in that case.
January 30, 1941

No. 45346.

#### Weight of Cheese.—Protest 658040-G of N. S. Monahos & Co., Inc.

Abstract 44840. Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
No. 46509.

#### Protests 6153-K, etc., of Eimer & Amend et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6936.

Entry Nos. 18586; 706112.

Invoices dated London, England, April 24, 1946, etc.

Certified April 26, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 22, 1946, etc.

(Decided February 28, 1947)

*Marlow & Hines,*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisementTof various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

The agreed set of facts, embodied in the stipulation of submission, establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)) is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values of the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19779]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Reports Regarding Employment of Veterans

AGENCY: The Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice to DOE contractors and 
prospective bidders/offerors that annual reports regarding employment 
of certain veterans must be furnished to the Department of Labor. Under 
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1997, the 
Department of Energy will seek to verify that an offeror or contractor 
has submitted their required annual ``Veterans 100'' report before 
making any contract award, renewal or expenditure.

EFFECTIVE DATES: This limitation is effective for the term of the 
appropriation which is October 1, 1996 through September 30, 1997, or 
such later date as the funds may be available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard B. Langston, Office of 
Procurement and Assistance Policy (HR-51), Office of the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Procurement and Assistance Management, 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 
20585-0705, (202) 586-8247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 1997, Public Law 104-206, provides at Section 510 
that none of the funds made available in the Act may be obligated or 
expended to award or renew a contract if the contractor has not filed 
its most recent annual report regarding the employment of certain 
veterans (``Veterans 100 Report'') which may be required by section 
4212(d) of title 38 of the United States Code. These reporting 
requirements are described in more detail at on Sec. 22.1308 of the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 22.1302). Generally, the report 
is required under any Federal contract exceeding $10,000 by a clause 
found at Sec. 52.222-37 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 
52.222-37). Before making an award, renewal or expenditure from this 
appropriation, the Department of Energy will seek to verify that the 
offeror or contractor has submitted its most recent required ``Veterans 
100'' report. If a required report has not been filed, the Department 
may not make an award, renewal or expenditure until the required report 
is furnished to the Department of Labor.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 12, 1997.
Richard H. Hopf,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Procurement and Assistance Management.
[FR Doc. 97-19779 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-U
# C_2015016EN.01001002.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/10

---

Order of the Court of 21 October 2014 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof) — BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch

(Case C-348/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition - Internet links giving access to protected works - Use of the ‘framing’ technique)

(2015/C 016/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BestWater International GmbH

Defendant: Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch

Operative part of the order

The mere fact that a protected work, freely available on an internet site, is inserted into another internet site by means of a link using the ‘framing’ technique, such as that used in the case in the main proceedings, cannot classified as ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society since the work at issue is not transmitted to a new public or communicated a specific technical method different from that of the original communication.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

---
#### Bloomingdale Bros. *v.*United States

No. 6606.

Entry Nos. 755384, 744741.

Invoices dated London, England, March 15, 1946, etc.

Certified March 18, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 24, 1946, etc.

(Decided December 11, 1946)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Moldison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar eases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### ADVENTURE RESOURCES, INCORPORATED, petitioner, v. Michael H. HOLLAND, et al.

No. 98-173.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 2, 1998.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1972 

To amend the Food and Drug Administration’s mission. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 8, 2011 

Mr. COATS (for himself and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Drug Administration’s mission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Food and Drug Ad5 ministration Mission Reform Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FDA’S MISSION. 

7 Section 1003(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos8 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(b)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘with respect 

10 to such products’’ and inserting ‘‘with respect to 

11 regulated products’’; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1972 IS

1 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘(1) through 

2 (3)’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) through (4)’’; 

3 (3) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through 

4 (4) as paragraphs (3) through (5); and 

5 (4) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(2) establish a regulatory system that— 

8 ‘‘(A) advances medical innovation by incor9 porating modern scientific tools, standards, and 

10 approaches to ensure the predictable, con11 sistent, and efficient review, clearance, ap12 proval, and licensing (as appropriate) of innova13 tive products, including drugs, devices, and bio14 logical products; 

15 ‘‘(B) protects the public health and enables 

16 patients to access novel products while pro17 moting economic growth, innovation, competi18 tiveness, and job creation among the industries 

19 regulated by this Act; 

20 ‘‘(C) is based on the best available science; 

21 ‘‘(D) allows for public participation and an 

22 open exchange of ideas; 

23 ‘‘(E) promotes predictability, allows flexi24 bility, and reduces uncertainty; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1972 IS

1 ‘‘(F) identifies and uses the most innova2 tive and least burdensome tools for achieving 

3 regulatory ends; 

4 ‘‘(G) ensures that regulations are acces5 sible, consistent, transparent, written in plain 

6 language, and easy to understand; 

7 ‘‘(H) measures, and seeks to improve, the 

8 actual results of regulatory requirements; and 

9 ‘‘(I) incorporates a patient-focused benefit10 risk framework that accounts for varying de11 grees of risk tolerance, including for people liv12 ing with a life-impacting chronic disease or dis13 ability;’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Memry Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 20, 2006 (the Report), I, Richard F. Sowerby, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 Company.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Richard F. Sowerby                    
|Richard F. Sowerby Chief Financial
Officer

Dated: September 20, 2006

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
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 Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Qinan Ji, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(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.


Date: August 13,
      2010
                  
                  
                  /s/
      Qinan JiQinan
      Ji, Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                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 American Oil & Gas, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A3 for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-QSB/A3"), I, Andrew P. Calerich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Form 10-QSB/A3 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and

     (2) The information contained in the Form 10-QSB/A3 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: May 6, 2004
       -----------

/s/ Andrew P. Calerich
----------------------
Andrew P. Calerich
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMEDICS
INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 2, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                                142,108
<SECURITIES>                                           43,310
<RECEIVABLES>                                          67,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                            4,498
<INVENTORY>                                            62,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      326,211
<PP&E>                                                 60,687
<DEPRECIATION>                                         38,780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        553,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  93,919
<BONDS>                                               122,802
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                4,174
<OTHER-SE>                                            243,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          553,618
<SALES>                                               313,131
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      313,131
<CGS>                                                 164,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         164,345
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       26,595
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        1,002
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      5,581
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        40,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                           15,312
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    18,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         4,638
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           23,610
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.55
        

</TABLE>
009611

Consumer Product Safety Alert

FROM THE U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

CPSC Warns Consumers

of Dange rs With Infant Rattles

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is concerned about several rattles recently sold as novelty items or decorations for cakes, gifts, floral arrangements, etc., which do not meet the safety requirements the

Commission has established for rattles. These novelty rattles, such as the ones shown above, are small enough to

enter an infant’s mouth and become lodged in the back of the throat. To prevent choking accidents, CPSC urges

consumers to discard these hazardous rattles.

The U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

(CPSC) warns consumers about potential choking hazards associated with several rattles being sold as novelty items and decorations.

In 1978, after receiving reports of several choking

deaths involving children’s rattles, CPSC established

safety requirements which all rattles must meet. The

regulations require that rattles be large enough so that

they cannot enter an infant’s mouth and become lodged

in the back of the throat, and be constructed so they will

not separate into small pieces which can be swallowed

or inhaled.

While all rattles intended for children must meet these

r e g u l a t i o n s, the CPSC has become aware of some noncomplying rattles which have been sold recently as part y

favors or as decorations on gifts, floral arra n g e m e n t s,

c a ke s, etc. These rattles could be removed and given to

i n fa n t s, although they do not meet the safety requirements the CPSC has establ i s h e d .D i s t ri butors have been

advised that these rattles are banned;t h ey have stopped

selling the rattles and have begun recalling them from

r e t a i l e r s. CPSC is concerned, however, about the possibility of children choking on rattles that may still be in

consumers’ hands.

The CPSC wa rns consumers to check all rattles carefully before giving them to a child. An infa n t ’s mouth is

extremely pliable and can stretch to hold larger shapes

than one might ex p e c t . To test rattles for minimum perm i s s i ble size, CPSC uses a device which has an ova l

opening that measures approximately 1-3/8 inches

(35mm) by 2 inches (50mm), and is 1-3/16 inches

(30mm) deep. A ny portion of a ra t t l e, such as its handle,

which passes through this opening is small enough to

enter an infa n t ’s mouth and become lodged in the back

of the throat.To reduce the chance of a choking accident,

parents should choose rattles which are at least as large,

and prefe ra bly larger, than these dimensions.

CPSC recommends that consumers who have hazardous rattles stop using them immediately. Consumers may

wish to check with the retail store where the rattle wa s

purchased regarding possible refund or recall progra m s.

For further information, consumers may call the CPSC’s

toll-free hotline on 800-638-CPSC. The teletypewriter

number for the hearing impaired is (301) 595-7054.