alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020247EN.01004401.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/44

---

Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-335/20)

(2020/C 247/60)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš, O. Serdula and J. Vláčil, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) CCI 2014CZ06RDNP 001 of 30 March 2020, which suspends interim payments linked to the Rural Development Programme of the Czech Republic for the period 2014-2020 and related to the expenditure incurred in the periods between 16 October 2018 and 31 December 2018 (notified under number C (2020) 1857 final); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) CCI 2014CZ06RDNP 001 of 30 March 2020, which suspends interim payments linked to the Rural Development Programme of the Czech Republic for the period 2014-2020 and related to the expenditure incurred in the periods between 16 October 2018 and 31 December 2018 (notified under number C (2020) 1857 final);

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy. (1) The applicant alleges that the Commission incorrectly takes the view that the subsidy to which the suspended payment relates was provided in breach of national legislation. However, there could not have been any infringement of the national legislation concerned since that legislation does not apply to the type of subsidies which the suspended payment concerns.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

---
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

QcmALD c. MAW3 

.rrm.nm.UIL April lS$ lOJO 

Mr. 2. 0. Walton, Preri4eBt 

Agrloultoral and MeohaBio$l cellege 

colleg* station, Ton8 

Pear Mr. mlton: 

ethar the86 

la l o h a r r er *~ 

to o p er a to a 

mtor ~o h lo lo 

l fla ed h a p a r a g r a( gp h o) f 

or the RehwI clvll Statute8 

penon who operator a ILo?- 

rpow, uhola or part time, 

nt, 

oontnotor, paid 

agent, ‘or Inilepoadsnt 

ln aalrry or 0-8. 

6io a g a n4 l r eq p ,r r ewhn o o p er a ka m mo tor veMole -while 8uah'khiolr f* ih u80 ior titi or 

loam . * 
Seotlan I! af the Aot mys: 

a0pei-atar8 a116 Ohauffeura mast be 

On anil after April 1, 1936,~mo pernon l x obp t 

th o sl e x p sr ee8lxem y up nt detr h l8 Ac t, h a ll 

&rlve any rotor vehlolo upon l hlghua~ in thl8 

sta te a sh88 M e& p eto oun p o l n p p liea tl.lno n a 

b eelln o en8a*s a6 n opeater or eha a tfeu b y r 

tlw diJWnt under the prwl8l~p8 of thl8 Aot.” 
-IL% T. 0. Walton,-Apkll li, 1939. RUO S 

jUdiOf81, ittadhO8 f0; ih0 ti& ?dIl& t0 be .* - 

exarolnod for tho pabllo bon&it. Ualesa $he 

powers oonferred are oi this Mttue, the,%- 

dirid~i 18 Ib3t 8 pObli0 OfiiO~T.'* 

i, 

. . *...,I.. ~.$ 
J=. T. 0. Walton, April 13, 1939, pasS 4 7 

a ahaurfeura licsnsa in order to operate a Cdlsgu -pwmd 

yl0'. - .' 

Yours very trl+f. 

Y 

AmR%EY CEKERAL Of TJXAS 

c&l1 C. Botnoh 

. 

._ 

: 

.
#### SELF SERVICE SHOE STORES, INC., Appellant, v. Lillian POWELL et al., Appellees.

No. 70-662.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
[No. 899-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

December 20, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Bonnie Lee Swordmaker, *Appellant.*
H. Res. 475

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

July 20, 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. 1188) to provide for disclosures for insurance

in interstate commerce. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. 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 Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall

be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It

shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill. The

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be

considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the
2

HRES 475 EH

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 committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED AS PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          70,098
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,920
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,296)
<INVENTORY>                                     51,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               198,810
<PP&E>                                         228,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                (44,336)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 728,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,032
<BONDS>                                        215,909
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    207,000
<COMMON>                                        94,035
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   728,333
<SALES>                                        166,231
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               166,231
<CGS>                                           83,291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  183,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (16,020)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,746)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,611
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33,357)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,133)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)


</TABLE>
[No. 600-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

June 28, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Luther Lee Gosby, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King *913County, No. 52963, Howard J. Thompson, J., entered April 27, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
-/^/£3 Wtz/trdfGtf/b//7/f£ /f/t/r&yf/S 

## jQc/t-z citse'M , g;;* J5 2015 Ab®lAcosta,Cterk 

### 7"M# '4k7f$0# X <?/« W/6>/*-/*$ fo j/t 0S /s //i ^c'p^^r/c 01'b #/ CO/zfitrek'&uff C&>? f^x-
# C_2021148EN.01001102.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/11

---

Action brought on 26 February 2021 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-126/21)

(2021/C 148/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Tomkin, and S. Grünheid, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of that Framework Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of that Framework Decision;

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

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 27 of Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, Member States were to take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of the Framework Decision by 1 December 2012 and to notify the Commission of such measures.

The Commission considers that Ireland has infringed its obligations under Article 27 of the Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Framework Decision or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2009, L 294, p. 20.

---
#### E. C., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-63.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 17, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Sr., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

On appeal from an adjudication of delinquency for unlawfully receiving, buying or concealing stolen property [Fla.Stat., § 811.16, F.S.A.], we considered carefully the record and briefs of counsel and are of the belief that there does not appear of record competent substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial judge. We are in agreement with appellant’s able counsel that the proof went to the theft of the tape recorder in question rather than the “receiving, buying or concealing stolen property”. We therefore must reverse the order adjudicating appellant a delinquent as this court has held in Ketelsen v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 853 and Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 25 that “one who steals property or is a principal to the theft can not be convicted of receiving, buying, concealing, or aiding in concealing, or aiding in concealing the property stolen”.

Reversed.
# C_2023278EN.01000702.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 June 2023 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-823/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Area of freedom, security and justice - Policies on border checks, asylum and immigration - Procedures for granting international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 6 - Effective access - The making of an application - National legislation laying down prior administrative steps to be carried out outside the territory of the Member State - Public health objective)

(2023/C 278/10)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Azéma, L. Grønfeldt, A. Tokár and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and M. M. Tátrai, acting as Agents.)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that by making the possibility, for certain third-country nationals or stateless persons present in the territory of Hungary or at the borders of that Member State, of making an application for international protection subject to the prior lodging of a declaration of intent at a Hungarian embassy located in a third country and to the granting of a travel document enabling them to enter Hungarian territory, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by making the possibility, for certain third-country nationals or stateless persons present in the territory of Hungary or at the borders of that Member State, of making an application for international protection subject to the prior lodging of a declaration of intent at a Hungarian embassy located in a third country and to the granting of a travel document enabling them to enter Hungarian territory, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection;

| 2. | Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14523]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Bankruptcy Procedure

AGENCY: Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Judicial 
Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will 
hold a meeting on September 17, 2018. The meeting will be open to 
public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting 
materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at: 
http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-and-archives-rules-committees/agenda-books.

DATES: September 17, 2018

TIME: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham 
Conference Center, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
One Columbus Circle NE, Washington, DC 20544.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee 
Secretary, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: July 2, 2018.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf,
Rules Committee Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14523 Filed 7-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
# C_2023071EN.01001201.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 January 2023 — Frédéric Jouvin v European Commission

(Case C-719/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Complaint submitted to the European Commission - Commission Decision rejecting the complaint - Action for annulment - Time limit for lodging a response)

(2023/C 71/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Frédéric Jouvin (represented by: L. Bôle-Richard, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Boitos, B. Ernst and A. Keidel, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Frédéric Jouvin to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Frédéric Jouvin to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.

---
# C_2021228EN.01001301.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/13

---

Appeal brought on 26 January 2021 by Allergan Holdings France against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-664/19, Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita (JUVEDERM ULTRA)

(Case C-41/21 P)

(2021/C 228/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Allergan Holdings France (represented by: T. de Haan, avocat, and J. Day, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Dermavita Co. Ltd

By order of 29 April 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Allergan Holdings France should bear its own costs.

---
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 00450

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

00450\00450_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 00450\00450_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00450\00450_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00450\00450_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00450\00450_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00450\00450_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

00450\Certification Statement Plant ID 00450.pdf Plant certification statement

x 00450\Supporting Documents\00450_D-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00450\Supporting Documents\00450_MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00450\Supporting Documents\00450_WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00450\00450_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00450\00450_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Subsector Solutions Corporation ('SSC') requests an exemption from the regulations described in the attachment as provided in Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 in reference to 49 USC § 44704. SSC intends on using drones like: Phantom 3 Professional, Parrot AR.Drone 2.0, and ARRIS X-Speed FPV 250.

SSC operates a ISP subsidiary that leverages line of sight radio services.  Leveraging unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) SSC will perform line of sight validation, tower inspection, and surveying in a safe manner. SSC will only operate UAS in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations, the UAS manufacturer’s recommendations, SSC standard operating procedures, UAS industry standards and the terms of the exemption (if granted).

Please contact me if SSC has overlooked requesting exemption from any regulation that it will need to conduct operations as described so that we may modify our petition. We also request the opportunity to modify this petition to meet FAA approval as necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter
and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Best Regards,
Eric Fulton
CEO, Subsector Solutions Corporation
eric@tsi.io
406-220-2980
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 537 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 537

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 22, 1994.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2021349EN.01002302.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Slovenia) lodged on 30 June 2021 — FV v NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.

(Case C-405/21)

(2021/C 349/30)

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: FV

Respondent: NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR d.d.

Question referred

Is Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 8a, of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) to be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which characterise the two conditions of ‘good faith’ and ‘a significant imbalance’ as alternatives (as separate, autonomous and independent conditions), such that, for the purposes of deciding whether a contractual term is unfair, it is sufficient if facts exist which establish that just one of those two conditions is fulfilled?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

---
259 La. 762

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas J. PLEWACKI.

No. 51764.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: Thomas J. Plewacki applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.