alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20661]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-69; RM-9007]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Idalou, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Fred R. Morton, allots 
Channel 299A to Idalou, Texas, as the community's second local FM 
service. See 62 FR 09410, March 3, 1997. Channel 299A can be allotted 
to Idalou in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance 
separation requirements with a site restriction of 1.5 kilometers (0.9 
miles) north in order to avoid a short-spacing conflict with the 
licensed operation of Station KPOS-FM, Channel 297C2, Post, Texas. The 
coordinates for Channel 299A at Idalou are 33-40-34 NL and 101-41-01 
WL. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective September 15, 1997. The window period for filing 
applications will open on September 15, 1997, and close on October 16, 
1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 97-69, adopted July 23, 1997, and 
released August 1, 1997. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, 
NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082;

    47 U.S.C. 154, as amended.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is 
amended by adding Channel 299A at Idalou.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-20661 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19745]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3557-000]

Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Notice of Filing

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 1, 1997, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 
tendered for filing a Pro Forma Umbrella Service Agreement for Firm 
Point-To-Point Transmission Service (Attachment A-1 to the Tariff) and 
a Pro Forma Umbrella Service Agreement for Non-Firm Point-To-Point 
Transmission Service (Attachment B-1 to the Tariff). A copy of the 
filing was served on the parties listed on the official service list.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before July 31, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19745 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
# C_2015198EN.01003002.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener v Council

(Joined Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12) (1)

1

((Dumping - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China - Amendment of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 2(10) and (11) of Regulation No 1225/2009 - Calculation of the dumping margin - Adjustments - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 198/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory (Changshu City, China); and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd (Ningbo, China) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrich and A. Polcyn, subsequently by A. Polcyn and finally by D. Geradin, lawyers)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents); and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (represented by: J. Bourgeois and R. Grasso, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Actions for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012, amending Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 275, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the actions;

| 2) | Orders Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI); |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI);

| 3) | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

1

---
# C_2014292EN.01005901.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/59

---

Order of the General Court of 20 June 2014 — Torrefacção Camelo v OHIM — Lorenzo Pato Hermanos (Decoration for packaging)

(Case T-302/12) (1)

1

2014/C 292/74

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

1

---
No. 45337.

#### Protests 840352-G, etc., of A. B. Martin Co. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2014194EN.01003801.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/38

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2014 — Visa Europe v Commission

(Case T-447/12) (1)

1

2014/C 194/51

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

1

---
#### Preserved B. Mills *versus*Samuel Darling, *Adm’r.*

A conveyance by husband and wife of real estate belonging to the wife, and a bond to reconvey given to the wife alone, constitute a mortgage; and not the less so because the wife gave no personal security for the money to be paid, as specified in the condition of the bond.

On agreed statement of facts.

Writ of entry to recover possession of a lot of land in Bangor.

The defendant is in possession of the premises as adminis*566trator of the estate of Eliza M. Campbell, and also as lessee under her heirs at law, she having died in February, 1856, leaving no children.

The plaintiff claims title under a quit claim deed, dated February 1, 1854, from Benjamin G-. Campbell, and Eliza M. Campbell, his wife,i in her right to himself.

At the time Campbell and wife executed the deed to Mills, he executed to her a bond of the same date, to sell and execute to her a deed of the premises on the condition that she paid, took and delivered to him four notes, amounting to the sum of four hundred dollars, agreeably to the conditions of the bond. Mrs. Campbell has paid only sixty dollars towards the notes, which sum is endorsed on the bond.

Mills has paid and taken up two of the notes, and paid one year’s interest on the other two notes. The notes have always been at a convenient place in Bangor, for her to pay them at her request.

The defendant submits to a default, but claims that judgment shall be rendered as of mortgage.

Judgment is to be rendered according to the legal rights of the parties.

*A. G. Wakefield,*counsel for the plaintiff.

*Albert W. Paine,*counsel for the defendant.

Hathaway, J.

Benjamin G. Campbell and his wife, in her right, conveyed the demanded premises to the demandant, who at the same time gave her a bond, conditioned to convey the same to her on her payment of certain notes of the same date, given by him to Charles E. Mills, of which she subsequently paid a part only, which was endorsed on the bond.

The question is, whether or not the deed and bond constituted a mortgage. The counsel for the plaintiff insists, that the bond cannot operate as a defeasance within the meaning of R. S., chap. 125, sec. 1, because, *“*the deed was from two persons, and the bond to one person,”

*567But the land belonged to the wife, and the husband joined in the deed merely to enable her to convey it. A conveyance to *her,*as stipulated in the bond, would have restored to both the husband and wife, the same title to the land which was conveyed by their deed to the demandant. It would have been, strictly, a *reconveyance.*

It is also objected that Mrs. Campbell gave no personal security for the money to be paid, as specified in the condition of the bond. It was not necessary that she should give such security. Rice v. Rice, 4 Pick., 349.

The demandant is entitled only to the conditional jugdment.

*Judgment as of Mortgage,*
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2010 - 1303 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 - SW - 049 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
### Hell o ,

1. I am Requesting Section 333 Exemption

- a grant of exemption in accordance with Section 333 AND a civil Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA); this process may be used to perform commercial operations in low

- risk, controlled environments. 2. I would like to conduct photography for hire with a small drone. I am a commercially rated rotor craft pilot and I am well aware of how to read a sectional chart and where I should and should not be flying. I would be flying at altitudes no higher then 100 feet AGL. I would be doing photography for small events and real estate. Per part 333 the aircraft weighs less than 55 pounds, operations are conducted during daytime Visual Flight Ru les (VFR) conditions and within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilots, and would stay away from airports or heliports.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CHARLES J. RAYBINE,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2020-1218

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 18-6117, Judge Joseph L. Falvey,

Jr., Judge Joseph L. Toth, Judge William S. Greenberg.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.1

O R D E R

1 Circuit Judge Newman did not participate.

Case: 20-1218 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 09/27/2023
2 RAYBINE v. MCDONOUGH

Upon consideration of the Secretary’s unopposed motion to remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted. The case is remanded to the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to reconsider its decision in light of Taylor v. McDonough, 71 

F.4th 909 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (en banc), which held

that when a veteran has been determined to be entitled to benefits for one or more disabilities connected to participation in the Edgewood program at 

issue, the required effective date of such benefits is 

the date that the veteran would have had in the 

absence of the challenged government conduct—

imposition of the secrecy oath with no VA route for 

claim presentation and proof to vindicate the benefits entitlement.

Taylor, 71 F.4th at 946. 

September 27, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 20-1218 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 09/27/2023
Exhibit
10.36


 


Addendum


To


Employment
Agreement


 


This Addendum is effective November
8, 2007 (“Addendum”) and modifies the Employment Agreement (“Agreement”)
entered into effective October 5, 2006 between Lawson Software, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (“Company”) and Robert A. Schriesheim (“Employee”),
pursuant to Section 7.7 of the Agreement. Capitalized terms not otherwise
defined in this Addendum have the same respective meaning as defined in the
Agreement. The sections of the Agreement that are not expressly modified by
this Addendum shall remain in effect pursuant to their terms.


 


Section 3.6 of the Agreement is deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following new Section 3.6:


 


3.6           Travel
and Living Expenses. During the first three years of the Term, the Company
will pay Employee’s airfare expenses between Chicago, Illinois and St. Paul,
Minnesota under the Company’s travel policy and Employee’s living expenses in
St. Paul, Minnesota up to an aggregate amount of $125,000 during that
three-year period for such airfare and living expenses, with an annual limit of
$40,000 for year one, $41,600 for year two and $43,400 for year three for such
airfare and living expenses (collectively, the “Travel and Living Expenses”). In
addition, the Company will pay Employee the amount of federal and state
personal income taxes payable by Employee on the reimbursed Travel and Living
Expenses, plus the amount of federal and state personal income taxes payable on
the tax reimbursements under this Section 3.6 (the “Tax Gross-Up”). The Tax
Gross-Up and Travel and Living Expenses may together exceed the $125,000
three-year limitation or the respective annual limitations referred to above,
but the Travel and Living Expenses (before the Tax Gross-Up) must be within
those respective limits.


 


This Addendum may be signed in counterpart and by fax
or email pdf, and is effective November 8, 2007.


 


Lawson Software, Inc.


 


 


	
  By

  	
  /s/ Harry
  Debes

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
    Harry
  Debes,

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
    President
  and Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
    /s/ Robert
  A. Schriesheim

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Robert A. Schriesheim

  	
   

  



 


1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

GARRETT CUNNINGHAM , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2150

[ June 4, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Kathleen M. McHugh

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 13

- 013517 CF10A

.
Garrett Cunningham, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

W ARNER , F ORST and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2014175EN.01001801.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/18

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-301/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word mark CLUB GOURMET and CLUB DEL GOURMET - Rejection of the opposition - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 181 - Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part))

2014/C 175/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: El Corte Inglés, SA (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 March 2013 in Case T-571/11 El Corte Inglés v Chez Gerard (CLUB GOURMET), by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1946/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | El Corte Inglés SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

El Corte Inglés SA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.07.2013.

1

---
# C_2014282EN.01001501.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd

(Case C-345/13) (1)

1

((Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community design - Article 6 - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 85(2) - Unregistered Community design - Validity - Conditions - Burden of proof))

2014/C 282/20

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Karen Millen Fashions Ltd

Applicant:

Defendants: Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a design to be considered to have individual character, the overall impression which that design produces on the informed user must be different from that produced on such a user not by a combination of features taken in isolation and drawn from a number of earlier designs, but by one or more earlier designs, taken individually. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a design to be considered to have individual character, the overall impression which that design produces on the informed user must be different from that produced on such a user not by a combination of features taken in isolation and drawn from a number of earlier designs, but by one or more earlier designs, taken individually.

| 2. | Article 85(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a Community design court to treat an unregistered Community design as valid, the right holder of that design is not required to prove that it has individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of that regulation, but need only indicate what constitutes the individual character of that design, that is to say, indicates what, in his view, are the element or elements of the design concerned which give it its individual character. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 85(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a Community design court to treat an unregistered Community design as valid, the right holder of that design is not required to prove that it has individual character within the meaning of Article 6 of that regulation, but need only indicate what constitutes the individual character of that design, that is to say, indicates what, in his view, are the element or elements of the design concerned which give it its individual character.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

1

---