alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020443EN.01002701.xml

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/27

---

Action brought on 26 October 2020 — NB v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-648/20)

(2020/C 443/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NB (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019;

| — | as far as necessary, annul the decision to ‘reclassify’/ promote Ms [X] to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

as far as necessary, annul the decision to ‘reclassify’/ promote Ms [X] to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019;

| — | purely in the alternative, annul all decisions to ‘reclassify’/promote the applicant’s colleagues to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

purely in the alternative, annul all decisions to ‘reclassify’/promote the applicant’s colleagues to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that there was no legal basis for the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that there was no legal basis for the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the administration’s approach regarding reclassification from grade AST9 to grade AST10 was illegal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the administration’s approach regarding reclassification from grade AST9 to grade AST10 was illegal.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the scope of Article 31(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the scope of Article 31(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to inform staff about the rules applicable to reclassification from grade AST9 to grade AST10. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to inform staff about the rules applicable to reclassification from grade AST9 to grade AST10.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 494 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 494

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 29, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4801) to amend the Small Business Act, and for other purposes. The 
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
bill and the amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not exceed 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Small Business. After general debate the bill shall 
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
amendments recommended by the Committee on Small Business now printed in the 
bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of the bill modified by the amendments recommended by the 
Committee on Small Business now printed in the bill and by the additional 
amendments printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
be considered as read. No other amendment shall be in order except those printed 
in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the 
report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the 
amendments printed in the report are waived. At the conclusion of consideration 
of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 480 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 480

       Establishing July 10, 1994, as ``Cost of Government Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 1994

   Mr. DeLay (for himself, Mr. Baker of California, Mr. Bartlett of 
Maryland, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Doolittle, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Hefley, 
   Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. 
Solomon) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Establishing July 10, 1994, as ``Cost of Government Day''.

Whereas the cost of Government has increased from 49.05 percent of net national 
        product (NNP) in 1989 to an estimated 52.24 percent of NNP in 1994;
Whereas the total cost of Government now exceeds $3,000,000,000,000;
Whereas Federal regulatory costs now exceed $650,000,000,000 annually;
Whereas the cost of Government in general and regulations in particular have 
        placed a tremendous drain on the economy in recent years by reducing 
        worker productivity, increasing prices to consumers, and increasing 
        unemployment; and
Whereas the average American worker does not earn enough money to pay off all 
        his or her Government-imposed financial obligations (Government spending 
        and the cost of regulations) until July 10, 1994: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That we, the United States Congress, do hereby recognize 
July 10, 1994, as Cost of Government Day and encourage all Federal, 
State, and local elected officials to carefully consider the costs of 
Government spending and regulatory schemes in the year to come.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John Sylvester BROWN, Appellee.

No. 71-766.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 28, 1972.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.

*187Joseph F. McDermott, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

The trial judge suppressed a statement taken from Brown in the Hillsborough County jail, on the ground that Brown was at the time represented by the Public Defender, who was not notified of the interrogation. Full Miranda warnings were given. Williams v. State, Fla.App.2d 1966, 188 So.2d 320, would support the trial judge’s ruling, but since that decision the Supreme Court has allowed a confession taken from a defendant represented by counsel who was in fact waiting in the lobby of the jail to see his client at the conclusion of the interrogation. State v. Craig, Fla.1970, 237 So.2d 737. We must therefore reverse and remand for reconsideration in the light of *Craig.*

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
# Records File Plan and Inventory

                - Title:  Records File Plan and Inventory 
                - Form #:         GSA2039      
                - Current Revision Date:  05/2014
                - Authority or Regulation: 

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

199)OGRC-S0002 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:31 PM Sheet 199 of 259 
P.2 

6&RC-SOOOST 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

WASHINGTON 

October 19, 1990 

Dear Governor Carruthers: 

On behalf of the President, I want to thank you for your 

recent correspondence regarding the "benzene standard". Your 

interest in increasing domestic crude oil production is 

commendable and we want to do all we can to support your efforts. 

We have raised your concerns with the Environmental 

Protection Agency which has worked on the benzene standard, also 

referred to as the benzene toxicity characteristic rule. They 

advise us that the standard will not affect the on-site 

reclamation of crude oil from tank bottoms. A 1988 regulatory 

action by EPA declared this activity exempt from regulation, and 

their recent action did not change that exemption. 

EPA is also looking at ways to encourage off-site 

reclamation. There may be some effect on reclamation activities 

in New Mexico, but any loss should not approach the 10,000 

barrels of oil per month noted in your letter. 

Finally, the standard would also have an effect on the 

recovery of petroleum products from groundwater. EPA published 

an interim final rule extending the date for compliance until 

January 25, 1991, and they are now considering extending the date 

for an additional two years to allow further study. A decision 

on this issue could be made as early as next week. I have 

forwarded a copy of your letter to EPA so they can inform you of 

this decision and any other related developments. 

I appreciate your bringing your concerns to the attention of 

the Administration. Please let me know if we can be of further 

assistance to you in any way. 

Sincerely, 

Lanny Griffith/^ 

Special Assistant to the President for 

Intergovernmental Affairs 

The Honorable Garrey Carruthers 

Office of the Governor 

State of New Mexico 

Santa Fe, NM 87503
# C_2022318EN.01001101.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Sector 1 a Finanţelor Publice v VB, Direcţia Generalā Regionalā a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1

(Case C-146/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Implementing Decisions 2010/583/EU and 2013/676/EU authorising Romania to derogate from Article 193 of that directive - Reverse charge mechanism - Supplies of wood products - National legislation imposing a condition of registration for VAT purposes for the application of that mechanism - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

(2022/C 318/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Administraţia Sector 1 a Finanţelor Publice

Defendants: VB, Direcţia Generalā Regionalā a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality do not preclude national legislation under which the reverse charge mechanism is not applicable to a taxable person who had neither applied for nor obtained on his or her own initiative, before carrying out the taxable transactions, his or her registration for the purposes of VAT.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1   NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.   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 Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C. Nicholas Keating, Jr., President and Chief Executive 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.  May 28, 2008  /s/ C. NICHOLAS KEATING, JR. C. Nicholas Keating, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 3931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1267]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Second Meeting RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).

DATES: The meeting will be held February 11, 2011 from 8:30 a.m. to 1 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Capitol View Business & 
Conference Center, Rotunda Terrace Conference Room, 9th Floor, 101 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20001. Metro using the red line 
Union Station exit. Clear security at RTCA NAC welcome desk in the 
lobby.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for the NextGen Advisory Committee meeting. The agenda 
will include:
     Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions).
     Official Statement of Designated Federal Official.
     Review and Approval of September 23, 2010 Meeting Summary.
     Chairman's Report.
     FAA Report.
     Subcommittee Report: NAC Subcommittee and Work Groups.
     Break.
     Future of Aviation Advisory Committee NextGen 
Recommendations.
     Discussion of FAA Equipage Tasking.
     FAA's 2011 NextGen Implementation Plan.
     Understanding NextGen.
    [cir] Committee Interactive Discussion.
     Anticipated Issues for NAC Consideration and Action at May 
19, 2011 meeting.
     Adjourn.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 13, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-1267 Filed 1-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
256 La. 866

#### HOUSTON OIL FIELD MATERIAL COMPANY, Inc. v. PIONEER OIL & GAS CO., Inc., James R. Mary.

No. 50793.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: Houston Oil Field Material Co., Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 236 So.2d 536.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error in the judgment complained of.

McCALEB, and SANDERS, JJ., are of the opinion that a writ should be granted.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion that a writ should be granted.
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

February 25, 2013

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION 

14 CFR § 11.61-11.01

2(a). Cardinal Air Services Inc.

 3710 Artesia Ave.

 Fullerton CA 92833

 Telephone: 714-739-4880

 

 

2(b). Please accept this as a petition for exemption from 14 CFR part 121 appendices I

and J which requires an operator conducting FAR 135 charter operations and FAR 91.147 air tour 

operations to implement separate and distinct drug and alcohol testing programs.

2(c). Cardinal Air Services Inc. seeks to be allowed to operate its FAR 91 operations

FAR 135 operations under one drug and alcohol program. Cardinal Air Services Inc is a small 

helicopter company and both our 135 and 91 operations are managed by and employ the same 

people. At this time we are employing 2 pilots and one director of maintenance. All employees 

are currently on and will continue to be monitored under the Part 135 program if the exemption is 

granted.

2(d). In granting this request Cardinal Air Services Inc. would be provided with more effective drug and 

alcohol program monitoring. This would benefit the public in two ways. First, by combining the 

two programs our oversight is simplified thus limiting our potential for mistakes and increasing 

the overall safety of the program. Second, with only one program the FAA would only need to 

make one yearly inspection thus saving the public money and providing the Drug Abatement 

Division more time to use in its interest.

2(e). Granting this exemption will not adversely affect safety as all employees who perform safety 

sensitive functions will remain covered by an approved drug program under the same 

management. As stated above we believe the combination of these programs will actually increase 

its safety by limiting the potential for errors or omissions.

2(f). Federal Registry Summary: I was informed that because this request was not precedent setting that 

a summary would not be necessary.

2(g). No additional information, views or arguments.

2(h). Cardinal Air Services Inc will not exercise this exemption outside of the United States.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

 

Charles Street

Director of Operations 

Cardinal Air Services Inc.
<page>

										EXHIBIT 31.02

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey D. Hahn, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation ("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant,
certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-
15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and


<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of Demeter's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and

   b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
     	or other employees who have a significant role in the
     	registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   March 15, 2004         /s/	Jeffrey D. Hahn
		Jeffrey D. Hahn
                                  	Chief Financial Officer,
                                  	Demeter Management Corporation,
                                 	general partner of the
                                  	registrant
Exhibit 32


                              Section 1350 Certifications


                         STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned is the Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Newsearch, Inc.
This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. This Certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Newsearch, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

The undersigned certifies that such 10-KSB Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Newsearch, Inc. as of December 31, 2005.

This Certification is executed as of June 20, 2006.

                                /s/ Dean Wicker
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                    Dean Wicker
                                    Director, CEO, President and CFO
                                    (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to us, Inc. and will be retained by Newsearch, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.