alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31135-31136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14256]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

[[Page 31136]]

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be 
announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Valley Electric Association, Valley Conference Center, 800 
East Highway 372, Pahrump, Nevada 89041.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 
232 Energy Way, M/S 167, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 
630-0522; Fax (702) 295-2025 or Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dc928f8f9d9e9cb2b2afbdf2b8b3b9f2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95dbc6c6d4d7d5fbfbe6f4bbf1faf0bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

1. DOE and Liaison Updates
2. Recommendation Development for Community Interest Analysis--Work 
Plan Item #7
3. Educational Briefing on Emergency Preparedness Working Group

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance 
of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every 
effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special 
needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, 
please contact Barbara Ulmer at least seven days in advance of the 
meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be 
filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals 
who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should 
contact Barbara Ulmer at the telephone number listed above. The request 
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting 
in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Individuals wishing to make public comments can do so during the 15 
minutes allotted for public comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Barbara Ulmer at 
the address listed above or at the following website: http://www.nnss.gov/NSSAB/pages/MM_FY18.html.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on June 27, 2018.
Latanya Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-14256 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2020201EN.01005302.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/53

---

Action brought on 24 April 2020 — Biovene Cosmetics v EUIPO — Eugène Perma France (BIOVÈNE BARCELONA)

(Case T-227/20)

(2020/C 201/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biovene Cosmetics, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eugène Perma France (Saint-Denis, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark BIOVÈNE BARCELONA in colours pink and white — Application for registration No 16 523 102

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 in Case R 1661/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul and invalidate the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and invalidate the contested decision;

| — | annul and invalidate the decision of the Opposition Division; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and invalidate the decision of the Opposition Division;

| — | modify these decisions and agree the granting the application for the trade mark at issue in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

modify these decisions and agree the granting the application for the trade mark at issue in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO and Eugène Parma France to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings, the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Eugène Parma France to bear the costs of the present appeal proceedings, the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13759]



[[Page 30036]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 206

[Docket ID: DOD-2017-OS-0055]
RIN 0790-AJ93


National Security Education Program (NSEP) Grants to Institutions 
of Higher Education

AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule will remove DoD's regulation that relates to 
the administration of the Boren grants program as sections pertinent to 
the public were incorporated into the revision of DoD's regulation 
titled ``National Security Education Program (NSEP) and NSEP Service 
Agreement'' on December 5, 2016. This rule has been superseded, is 
unnecessary, and can be removed.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 27, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Sam Eisen at 571-256-0760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It has been determined that publication of 
this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, 
and contrary to public interest since its content was incorporated into 
another CFR part for which public comment was taken.
    The removal of this part eliminates text which has been superseded 
at 32 CFR part 208, therefore, it will not change the regulatory impact 
on the public. This removal is administrative in nature and does not 
result in a burden reduction or cost savings to the public.
    DoD internal guidance concerning the administration of the Boren 
grants program will continue to be published in DoD Instruction 1025.02 
available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/102502_dodi_2017.pdf.
    This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' therefore, E.O. 13771, ``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' does not apply.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 206

    Colleges and universities, Grant programs--education.

PART 206--[REMOVED]

0
Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 206 is 
removed.

    Dated: June 21, 2018.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018-13759 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### Dayton Harold INMAN and wife, Annie Chloe Inman v. Dr. O. B. CROCKER.

No. 47348.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 7, 1974.

Billy R. Gibson, Bruce, for appellants.

Ottis B. Crocker, Jr., Bruce, Armis E. Hawkins, Houston, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; W. W. Brown, Judge.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

Affirmed.
#### E. Carl Schnabel, Appellant, *v.*The American Educational Alliance, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March, 1913.)

Contracts — of employment — agreement to pay fifty dollars a week absolutely.

Depositions — read on trial — exclusion of cross-examination.

A contract of employment by which plaintiff had a “ drawing account of fifty dollars per week against commission at a fixed rate,” etc., is an agreement to pay fifty dollars a week absolutely.

After the direct testimony of plaintiff taken by deposition has been read on the trial, it is reversible error to exclude his cross-examination because defendant declines to read the answers.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, borough of Manhattan, fourth district, rendered in favor of the defendant after a trial by a judge without a jury.

Edward K. Sumerwell, for appellant.

Thomas P. McKenna, for respondent.

Bijur, J.

This judgment seems to have been rendered on the theory that a contract of employment which gave the plaintiff a “ drawing account of fifty dollars per week against commission at a fixed rate, etc.,” was not an agreement to pay fifty dollars per week absolutely, but only conditioned on the securing of orders. In this the learned *625court was in error. Schlesinger v. Burland, 42 Misc. Rep. 206.

The exclusion of the so-called cross-examination of the plaintiff in a deposition, because the defendant declined to read the answers and plaintiff’s counsel thereupon offered to read them, also constituted reversible error. Kalkhoff Co. v. Russian Church, 67 Misc. Rep. 107.

Seabuey and Gebabd, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
#### FEDDERS CORPORATION, Appellee, v. DAVID DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Eugene F. Alexander, and Rita M. Alexander, Appellants.

No. 83-1159.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 20, 1983.

Decided June 24, 1983.

*453Anthony J. Coultas, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.

Newman, Goldfarb & Freyman, David B. Freyman, Mayer S. Klein, Clayton, Mo., for appellee.

Before ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether a client is bound by a settlement agreement made by his lawyer. Fedders Corporation filed a diversity suit in the Eastern District of Missouri to collect debts allegedly owed to it by David Distributing Company and guaranteed by Eugene and Rita Alexander, David’s owners. The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract. The parties had several settlement discussions, and finally Fedders’s attorney and the defendants’ attorney agreed that the defendants would pay Fedders $105,000. The defendants’ attorney drafted settlement documents and forwarded them to Fedders’s attorney. When he objected that the Alexanders were not named as parties in the documents, the defendants’ attorney told him to add them, that it would be “no problem.” When the Alexanders refused to sign the documents, Fedders moved to enforce the settlement agreement. The court,1 after a hearing, entered judgment in favor of Fedders.

The defendants appeal, arguing here, as they did below, that their attorney had no authority to agree to various terms in the settlement agreement, especially the waiver of counterclaims. After studying the record and the briefs, we conclude that the lower court, which was charged with judging the credibility of the witnesses, was entitled to find that the defendants did not carry their burden of proving that their attorney lacked actual authority to make the settlement agreement. See *Leffler v. Bi-State Development Agency,*612 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Mo.App.1981). Accordingly, pursuant to 8th Cir.R. 14, we affirm on the basis of the lower court’s opinion.

1

. The Hon. William S. Bahn, United States Magistrate for the Eastern District of Missouri. This appeal was taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3) (Supp. V 1981).
No. 10768.

#### Dusenbury *v.*West.

Decided December 1, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Messrs. Addison, Sinks & Babcock,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Kinkead, Sheets & West,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
# C_2023261EN.01000402.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/4

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri, interested parties: Sisal Entertainment SpA, Magic Games Sas di A. Malfatti, Magic Games Srl, Codacons

(Case C-463/21, (1) Global Starnet)

(2023/C 261/09)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



  PARENT
  ------

  Haywood Bancshares, Inc.



                                                   PERCENTAGE        STATE OF
  SUBSIDIARIES (1)                                    OWNED       INCORPORATION
  ----------------                                 ----------    ---------------
                                            
  Haywood Savings Bank, Inc., SSB                     100%       North Carolina


  SUBSIDIARIES OF HAYWOOD SAVINGS BANK, INC., SSB
  -----------------------------------------------

  Great Smokies Financial Corporation                 100%       North Carolina

  Great Smokies Insurance Agency, Inc.(1)             100%       North Carolina


---------------------
  (1) Wholly owned subsidiary of Great Smokies Financial Corporation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                5
<MULTIPLIER>                             1,000

<S>
                                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     APR-28-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                          OCT-28-2000
<CASH>                                                      3,903
<SECURITIES>                                                8,480
<RECEIVABLES>                                               4,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  262
<INVENTORY>                                                11,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           27,724
<PP&E>                                                     17,851
<DEPRECIATION>                                              5,142
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             92,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       4,441
<BONDS>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                      858
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 80,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               92,489
<SALES>                                                    23,943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           23,943
<CGS>                                                      21,525
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              21,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            2,878
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (52)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  323
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (375)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               (617)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (992)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (.61)


</TABLE>
#### Edward SEE, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 72-5.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 12, 1972.

Habeas corpus denied.
H. Res. 479

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

July 14, 1994.

Resolved, That Senate amendment No. 104 to the bill

H.R. 4539 making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office

of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the

fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first

clause of the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States and is an infringement of the

privileges of this House and that such bill with the Senate

amendments thereto be respectfully returned to the Senate

with a message communicating this resolution.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2022368EN.01001002.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/10

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — SH v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Sibiu, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov

(Case C-627/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deduction of input tax paid in relation to the purchase, building and alteration of immovable property - Ex officio revocation of a taxable person’s identification for VAT purposes - Adjustment of the initial deduction - Reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law)

(2022/C 368/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: S.H.

Respondents: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Sibiu, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov

Operative part of the order

Articles 16, 184, 186 to 188 and 192 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national rules and practice requiring a taxable person, whose identification for value added tax (VAT) purposes was revoked for a given period on account of there being no taxable transactions shown in that person’s VAT returns filed during six consecutive months, to adjust the input VAT deducted in relation to the purchase of capital goods without that taxable person being entitled to adduce evidence that the substantive conditions for benefitting from the right to deduct are satisfied, on the ground that there is an irrebuttable presumption that the taxable person used those goods for purposes other than economic activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 10.5.2022.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE GREAT
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 10-Q FOR THE 40 WEEK PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER
4, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-26-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-04-1999
<CASH>                                          105984
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   224116
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     861170
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1264303
<PP&E>                                         1839926
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3324054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1194093
<BONDS>                                         951298
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38367
<OTHER-SE>                                      799080
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3324054
<SALES>                                        7730230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7730230
<CGS>                                          5521052
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5521052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2136436
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (62612)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  14738
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (7552)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7186
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7186
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19


</TABLE>
# C_2023321EN.01001701.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/17

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 May 2023 — MKB Multifunds BV v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-665/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Alleged State aid granted by a Member State in favour of a fund of funds - Preliminary examination of the European Commission - Decision of the Commission finding no State aid - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 1(h) - Concept of ‘interested party’)

(2023/C 321/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: MKB Multifunds BV (represented initially by R. Rampersad and J. M. M. van de Hel, advocaten, and subsequently by P. Breithaupt and J. M. M. van de Hel, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, C.-M. Carrega and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. K. Bulterman and C. S. Schillemans, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | MKB Multifunds BV is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

MKB Multifunds BV is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---