alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1165

To provide for judicial review of Nuclear Regulatory Commission decisions

on petitions for enforcement actions, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 25 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To provide for judicial review of Nuclear Regulatory Commission decisions on petitions for enforcement actions, and

for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be referred to as the ‘‘Nuclear Enforce5 ment Accountability Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT PETITIONS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

7 Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42

8 U.S.C. 2239) is amended by adding at the end the follow9 ing new subsection:
2

S 1165 IS

1 ‘‘d. ENFORCEMENT PETITIONS.—

2 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any person may petition

3 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to institute a

4 proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license,

5 or for such other action as may be proper.

6 ‘‘(2) STANDARDS FOR GRANTING.—The Com7 mission shall grant any request under paragraph (1)

8 if the petitioner demonstrates material evidence rea9 sonably indicating that—

10 ‘‘(i) the holder of the license with respect

11 to which a request has been made under para12 graph (1) is in significant noncompliance with

13 the terms of the license, this chapter, or the

14 Commission’s regulations, or

15 ‘‘(ii) the activities of the license present a

16 substantial hazard to the public health and

17 safety or common defense and security.

18 ‘‘(3) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—Any Commission

19 order denying a request under this subsection shall

20 be subject to judicial review in accordance with

21 chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code, and

22 chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.’’.

Æ
Privileged and Confidential 

Applicant submits this Safety Checklist as a confidential document under 14 C.F.R. 11.35 

(b) as the entire safety checklist contains confidential and proprietary information that the 

Applicant has not and will not share with others. The safety checklist contains operating 

conditions and procedures that are not available to the public and are protected from 

release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.
No. 10730.

#### The Scioto Valley Traction Co. *v.*Morrison.

Decided March 2, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Pickaway county.

*Messrs. Daugherty &*Todd, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. A. Deist*and *Messrs. Abernethy & Folsom,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Davis and Sitauck, JJ., concur. Spear, J., not participating.
steam

_ record - Fw: ELG ICR Extension Request

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 07/02/2010 09:08PM -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Kustos, George P." <GPKUSTOS@southernco.com> Date: 07/02/2010 05:57PM Subject: ELG ICR Extension Request

Please find attached a request, from Alabama Power Company, for a 60 day extension to complete the ELG ICR. A hard-copy has also been sent by FedEx overnight.

If you have any questions, please call me.

Thank you.

George P. Kustos, PE * 8-257-3274 Intracompany * 205-257-3274 Bell Phone * 205-257-4349 Fax * 205-288-1459 Linc Cell Phone * mailto: GPKUSTOS@southernco.com< mailto:GPKUSTOS@southernco.com > From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. g ov> To: <steam_record@erg.c om>, <jordan.ronald@epa.gov> Date: 7/2/2010 8:09 PM Sub j ect: Fw: ELG ICR Extension Request Attachments: ELG Extension Request.PDF Pa g e 1 of 1

6/23/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C2E4774DO

...
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1153 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1153

To suspend temporarily the duty on Tacrolimus in bulk or measured dose 
     form subject to approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 24 (legislative day, June 22), 1993

   Mr. Simon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on Tacrolimus in bulk or measured dose 
     form subject to approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

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

SECTION 1. TACROLIMUS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.31.12   Tacrolimus in measured dose              No change      No change      On or before     
                         and bulk form (CAS No.                                                 12/31/94      ''
                         104987-11-3) (provided for                                                            .
                         in subheadings 2934.90.47                                                              
                         and 3004.90.60).............  Free                                                     

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of approval of 
tacrolimus by the Food and Drug Administration.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2022257EN.01001901.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/19

---

Appeal brought on 10 December 2021 by TUIfly GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2021 in Case T-619/18 TUIfly GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-764/21 P)

(2022/C 257/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: TUIfly GmbH (represented by: L. Giesberts and D. Westarp, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 19 May 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
# C_2022303EN.01004001.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Beveland v EUIPO — Super B (BUCANERO)

(Case T-29/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark BUCANERO - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1), second subparagraph, point (a) and Article 58(1) point (a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark - Proof of genuine use)

(2022/C 303/49)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Beveland, SA (Sant Joan les Fonts, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Super B, SL (Talavera de la Reina, Spain) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2020 (Case R 1046/2020-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Beveland and Super B.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Beveland, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Beveland, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Jones, Appellant.

[656 NYS2d 1013]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that defendant’s sentence is unduly harsh or severe. In light of defendant’s lengthy criminal history and the circumstances of the various crimes for which defendant was convicted, we see no reason to disturb the sentence. Defendant raises several other contentions in his *pro se*supplemental brief, none of which has merit. Defendant was provided meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147). Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence , (see, *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). The contention of defendant that he was not notified of his right to testify before the Grand Jury is not supported by the record, and we will not consider matters outside the record *(see, People v Thayer,*210 AD2d 977). With respect to the request for substitution of counsel, defendant failed to demonstrate a compelling reason for the substitution or that the substitution was not merely a dilatory tactic *(see, People v Martuzas,*224 AD2d 928, *lv denied*88 NY2d 881). The contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel must be raised on a writ of error coram nobis *(see, People v Bachert,*69 NY2d 593). We have considered the remaining contention of defendant and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.—Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
#### William A. MORRIS v. STATE.

No. 38856.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 223 So.2d 743.
# C_2022222EN.01000701.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 8 September 2021 — Financijska agencija v HANN-INVEST d.o.o.

(Case C-554/21)

(2022/C 222/10)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Financijska agencija

Respondent: HANN-INVEST d.o.o.

Question referred

Can the rule laid down in the second part of the first sentence and in the second sentence of Article 177(3) of the Sudski poslovnik (Rules of Procedure of the Courts), which provides that ‘a case before a court of second instance shall be deemed to be closed on the date on which the decision is sent from the court office, after the case has been returned by the Registration Service. The Registration Service shall be required to return the file to the court office as promptly as possible after receipt thereof. The decision shall then be notified within a further period of eight days’ be considered compatible with Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter?

---
# C_2020201EN.01002902.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/29

---

Action brought on 19 March 2020 — JA v Parliament

(Case T-156/20)

(2020/C 201/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JA (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Principally:

| — | annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs;

In the alternative:

| — | find that the decision dissolving the political group ENF was unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the decision dissolving the political group ENF was unlawful;

| — | accordingly, annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, principally, on five pleas in law that are identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-154/20, IY v Parliament.

In the alternative, the applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the decision dissolving the European political group ENF. The applicant argues that since the dissolution decision was unlawful, as it was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and a misuse of powers, the dismissal decision — which was based exclusively on that dissolution — is itself, therefore, unlawful and must be annulled.

---
#### Edward Spadaro et al., Respondents, v Salvatore Balesteri, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[656 NYS2d 908]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Salvatore Balesteri appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated March 28, 1996, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-a and directed the production of recorded statements made by him during the course of an internal investigation conducted by the defendant City of New York Police Department.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs submitted a supplemental record which contained a transcript of the recorded statements made by the defendant during the Police Department’s internal investigation. The transcript was reviewed by this Court in camera. We find that the Supreme Court properly directed the production of the recorded statements at issue, as these statements were relevant and material to the action before it *(see,*Civil Rights Law § 50-a [2], [3]; *People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543; *Becker v City of New York,*162 AD2d 488; *Lawrence v City of New York,*118 AD2d 758).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.
# C_2023112EN.01000801.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

(Case C-688/21, (1) Confédération paysanne and Others (In vitro random mutagenesis))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 3(1) - Point 1 of Annex I B - Scope - Exemptions - Techniques/methods of genetic modification which have conventionally been used and have a long safety record - In vitro random mutagenesis)

(2023/C 112/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif Vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2M, CSFV 49, OGM: dangers, Vigilance OGM 33, Fédération Nature et Progrès

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

Intervening party: Fédération française des producteurs d’oléagineux et de protéagineux

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, read in conjunction with point 1 of Annex I B to that directive and in the light of recital 17 of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that organisms obtained through the application of a technique/method of mutagenesis which is based on the same processes of modification, by the mutagenic agent, of the genetic material of the organism concerned as a technique/method of mutagenesis which has conventionally been used in a number of applications and has a long safety record, but which differs from that second technique/method of mutagenesis by virtue of other characteristics, shall, in principle, be excluded from the exemption laid down in that provision, provided that it is established that those characteristics are likely to lead to modifications of the genetic material of that organism which differ, by their nature or by the rate at which they occur, from those obtained by the application of that second technique/method of mutagenesis. However, the effects inherent in in vitro cultures do not, as such, justify the exclusion from that exemption of organisms obtained by the in vitro application of a technique/method of mutagenesis which has conventionally been used in a number of in vivo applications and has a long safety record with regard to those applications.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 21.1.2022.

---
# C_2022024EN.01001201.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 29 July 2021 — Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-469/21)

(2022/C 24/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos de España

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a national provision that creates a node (as a tool for use with the repository), which is owned and managed by the State Administration, compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, (1) in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a national provision that creates a node (as a tool for use with the repository), which is owned and managed by the State Administration, compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, (1) in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof?

| 2. | If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is a national provision that requires pharmacies to use that node when they supply medicinal products financed by the National Health System compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is a national provision that requires pharmacies to use that node when they supply medicinal products financed by the National Health System compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof?

| 3. | If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is a national provision that provides that, where no agreement is reached between the State Administration and the entity managing the national repository in relation to integrating the node concerned into the repository, integration may be required, unilaterally and authoritatively, by ministerial order compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is a national provision that provides that, where no agreement is reached between the State Administration and the entity managing the national repository in relation to integrating the node concerned into the repository, integration may be required, unilaterally and authoritatively, by ministerial order compatible with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/[1]61, in particular Articles 25, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 44 thereof?

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 of 2 October 2015 supplementing Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down detailed rules for the safety features appearing on the packaging of medicinal products for human use (OJ 2016 L 32, p. 1).

---
EXHIBIT NO. 32.2

 

WRITTEN STATEMENTPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

The undersigned, Shawn M. Harrington, the Chief Financial Officer of Gerber Scientific, Inc. (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, hereby certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended October 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)	the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  December 11, 2003