alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 26/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 26 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6327 January 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 26

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6327 January 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 26/01 | Euro exchange rates — 24 January 2020 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 26/01

Euro exchange rates — 24 January 2020

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 26/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9704 — Gilde/Proman/Agilitas) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2020/C 26/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9638 — Hyundai Motor Group/Aptiv/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 26/04 | Publication of the amended product specification following the approval of a minor amendment pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 | 5 |
| 2020/C 26/05 | Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2020/C 26/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9704 — Gilde/Proman/Agilitas) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

2

2020/C 26/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9638 — Hyundai Motor Group/Aptiv/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

4

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2020/C 26/04

Publication of the amended product specification following the approval of a minor amendment pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

5

2020/C 26/05

Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Citizens Electric Company, Appellant, *v.*Lycoming-Edison Company.

*Appeals*— Practice, *Supreme Court*— Attachment—Violation *of injunction decree*— Findings *of fact.*

A decree dismissing- a rule for an attachment sought on the ground of an alleged violation of an injunction decree, will not he disturbed on appeal where the lower court, after a hearing and upon careful investigation, found as a fact that the defendant had fully complied with its decree.

Argued Feb. 18, 1918.

Appeal, No. 285, Jan. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lycoming Co., June T., 1913, No. 1, discharging rule to show why an attachment for contempt of court should not issue in case of Citizens Electric Company v. Lycoming-Edison Company.

Before Potter, Stewart, Frazer and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity for an injunction.

Rule for attachment for contempt of court. Before Whitehead, P. J.

From the record, it appeared that an injunction had been awarded as prayed for in the bill; that thereafter plaintiff alleged a violation of the injunction and a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue was allowed. After hearing the evidence, the court found as fact that defendant had complied with its former decree and discharged the rule for the attachment. Plaintiff appealed.

*Errors assigned*were in dismissing exceptions to findings of fact and law and the decree of the court.

*183■ *John €r. Reading,*with him *M. O; Rhone, R. F. Allen, Herbert T. Ames,*and *Thomas H. Hammond,*of *Ames é Hammond,*for appellants;

*Addisoñ Candor,*of *Candor & Munson,*for appellee.

April 22, 1918:

Per Curiam,

The appellant in this case asked for an attachment against the defendant, alleging that it had violated the decree of the court below. After a hearing, and upon careful investigation, the trial court found as a fact that the defendant had fully complied with its decree, and it dismissed the rule for the attachment. We have not been convinced that the court below erred in the conclusion which it reached in this respect. Its decree is, therefore, affirmed, and this appeal is dismissed at the cost of appellant.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2454 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures or coprecipitates 

of yttrium oxide and europium oxide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures 

or coprecipitates of yttrium oxide and europium oxide. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OR COPRECIPITATES OF YTTRIUM 

4 OXIDE AND EUROPIUM OXIDE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.04 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 mixtures or coprecipitates of yttrium oxide and europium 

8 oxide) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2454 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Travis Marshall, Appellant, v Steven B. Nacht, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the parties were directed to appear before this court to be heard pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), upon the issue of the imposition of appropriate sanctions and/or costs, if any, against the appellate attorney for the plaintiff for his conduct in pursuing a frivolous appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 13, 1989 *(see, Marshall v Nacht,*172 AD2d 727).

Upon the proceedings before this court on May 29, 1991, at which the parties were given an opportunity to be heard upon the issue of sanctions and/or costs, it is,

Ordered that Allen J. Hershberg, the appellate attorney for the plaintiff, is directed to personally pay the sum of $250 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry, for his conduct in pursuing a frivolous appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 13, 1989.

The facts of the underlying legal malpractice action were set forth in our prior decision and order, which affirmed the order appealed from *(see, Marshall v Nacht, supra).*We concluded therein that this appeal "so obviously lacks merit in either fact or law that it must be characterized as frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c)”. On May 29, 1991, the appellate attorneys for the parties appeared before this court and were heard with respect to the question of *793sanctions and/or costs. After due deliberation, and under the circumstances of this case, we find it appropriate to require the plaintiffs appellate attorney to pay a sanction of $250 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Fiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
J I M WEB B VIRGINI A COMMITTE E O N ARME D SERVICE S COMMITTE E O N FOREIG N RELATION S COMMITTE E O N VETERANS ' AFFAIR S JOIN T ECONOMI C COMMITTE E WASHINGTO N OFFICE : WASHINGTON , D C 2051 0 (202)224-402 4 

# Bnite dState s Senat e

WASHINGTON , D C 20510-460 5 Augus t 20 , 201 0

Ms
. Heide h Shahmorad i Actin g Deput y Assistan t

Secretary fo

r Governmenta l Affair s U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Dea r Ms
. Shahmoradi : rs j >

~ n C O

I a mwritin g t o expres s m y support for an applicatio n submitte d t o th e U.S
. Departmen t o f Transportation' s (DOT) Smal l Communit y Ai r Servic e Developmen t

Progra m(SCASDP ) b y th e Shenandoah Valle y Regiona l Airport Commissio n (SVRAC)
. It i s m y understandin g tha t prio r t o 2002 , th e Shenandoah Valle y Regiona l Airport provide dself-sustaining , community-supporte d ai r transportatio n t o Virginian s livin g i n th e Shenandoah Valley
. Accordin g t o th e SVRAC , servic e a t th e Shenandoah Valle y Regiona l Airport wa s reduce db y approximatel y seventy-percen t followin g Septembe r

11 , 2001 , an d th e airport los t acommensurat e volum e o f passenge r

traffic
. Resource s provide d throug h th e SCASD P woul dallo w th e Shenandoah Valley Regiona l airport Commissio n t o pursu e a substantia l an dsustaine dadvertisin g campaig n aime d at enhancin g awarenes s o f

service s offere d at th e airport , whic h coul dpossibl y reduc e o r eliminat e th e airport' s nee d for assistanc e throug h th e DOT' S Essentia l Ai r

Servic e Program
. It appear s tha t

th e Shenandoah Valley Regiona l Airport Commissio n (SVRAC ) i s well

positione dt o mee t

th e goal s o f

th e Smal l Communit y Ai r Servic e Developmen t

Programand , t o that end , I as k

tha t yo u giv e thi s applicatio n every fair an d favorabl e consideratio n i n keepin g wit h establishe dfederal law s an dguideline s governin g you r program . I further

as k that yo u kee p m e informe do f

th e statu s o f

thi s proposa l b y contactin g Mr
. Marti n Mas h in m y Roanok e offic e at 314 0 Chaparra l Drive , Buildin g C , Suit e 101 , Roanoke , Virgini a24018
. Mr
. Mas h ma y als o b e reache dviatelephon e at (540 ) 772-4236
. Wit h war mregards , I a

m



### I Web b

ite d State s Senato r ,TW : m m
ATTACHMENT B Summary for Publication in the Federal Register Should it be Determined that Publication is Needed (14 CFR Part 11)

### Summary for Publication in the Federal Register Should it be Determined that Publication is Needed (14 CFR Part 11)

True Spatial, LLC seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(a) & (c), 61.101(e)(4) & (e)(5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), 91.417(a) & (b) and certain parts of §§ 45.23, 45.27 and 45.29. This exemption will permit True Spatial, LLC to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) for the commercial purpose of conducting aerial assessments, remote sensing and photogrammetry within the National Airspace System (NAS). The DJI S900 and 3DR X8-M UAS subject to this petition are small and lightweight, will be operated in strict compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions and safety requirements, and under controlled conditions in an airspace that pre-established and access controlled (“Sterile Environment”). The UA will operate only during daylight hours and within line of sight of a Visual Observer and the PIC. Given the small size of the subject UAS and the restricted Sterile Environment within which it will operate, True Spatial’s exemption falls within the zone of safety and demonstrates and equivalent level of safety in adherence with Congress’s authorization of the FAA to permit commercial UA operations by exemption pending the finalization of formal legislation, and presents no hazard to the National Aerospace System. All flights will occur over private or controlled access property with the land owner or subject’s prior knowledge and consent. True Spatial, LLC seeks the exemptions described above in order to permit the safe operation of the DJI S900 and 3DR X8-M commercially, without an airworthiness certificate, for the limited purpose of conducting aerial acquisitions within the National Airspace System (NAS). By granting this Petition, the FAA Administrator will be fulfilling the Congressional mandate of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, while also advancing the interests of the public, by allowing True Spatial to safely, efficiently, and economically operate the DJI S900 and 3DR X8-M commercially within the NAS.
# Diario Oficial C 296A/3 de

| | ISSN 1977-0928 |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 296A |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 65.° año3 de agosto de 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0928

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 296A

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

65.° año3 de agosto de 2022

---

| Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Anuncios |
| | PROCEDIMIENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS |
| | Empresa Común para el desarrollo de la energía de fusión |
| 2022/C 296 A/01 | Anuncio por el que se modifica el anuncio Empresa Común Europea para el ITER y el desarrollo de la energía de fusión (F4E) — Publicación de un anuncio de vacante para el puesto de director/directora (Agente temporal — Grado AD 14) — COM/2022/20086 ( DO C 285 A de 26.7.2022 ) | 1 |

Sumario

Página

V   Anuncios

PROCEDIMIENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Empresa Común para el desarrollo de la energía de fusión

2022/C 296 A/01

Anuncio por el que se modifica el anuncio Empresa Común Europea para el ITER y el desarrollo de la energía de fusión (F4E) — Publicación de un anuncio de vacante para el puesto de director/directora (Agente temporal — Grado AD 14) — COM/2022/20086 ( DO C 285 A de 26.7.2022 )

( DO C 285 A de 26.7.2022 )

1

---

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

V Anuncios

PROCEDIMIENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Empresa Común para el desarrollo de la energía de fusión

| 3.8.2022 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CA 296/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2022

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CA 296/1

---

Anuncio por el que se modifica el anuncio Empresa Común Europea para el ITER y el desarrollo de la energía de fusión (F4E) — Publicación de un anuncio de vacante para el puesto de director/directora (Agente temporal — Grado AD 14) — COM/2022/20086

(
  Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea C 285 A de 26 de julio de 2022
  )

(2022/C 296 A/01)

En la página 5, en «Condiciones de empleo», sexto párrafo:

| donde dice: | «El puesto estará disponible a partir del 1 de enero de 2024.», |
| --- | --- |

donde dice:

«El puesto estará disponible a partir del 1 de enero de 2024.»,

| debe decir: | «El puesto estará disponible a partir del 1 de enero de 2023.». |
| --- | --- |

debe decir:

debe decir:

«El puesto estará disponible a partir del 1 de enero de 2023.».

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that,
to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q filed by Cape Fear Bank Corporation (the Issuer) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 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 that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 10, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Betty V. Norris    
|                      |  |  |  | Betty V. Norris        
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2145 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2145

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain AC electric 
      motors of an output exceeding 74.6 W but not exceeding 85 W.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Alexander (for himself and Mr. Corker) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain AC electric 
      motors of an output exceeding 74.6 W but not exceeding 85 W.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN AC ELECTRIC MOTORS OF AN OUTPUT EXCEEDING 74.6 W BUT 
              NOT EXCEEDING 85 W.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.85.06 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain AC electric motors 
of an output exceeding 74.6 W but not exceeding 85 W) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                   

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF AEARO CORPORATION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND THE STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS OF AEARO CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 CONTAINED
IN AEARO CORPORATION'S FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,737
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     30,466
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,261
<PP&E>                                          85,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 286,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,768
<BONDS>                                        218,592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   286,747
<SALES>                                        292,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               292,459
<CGS>                                          163,877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               111,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,242)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,204
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,446)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,446)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (195.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (195.60)
        

</TABLE>
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancessetforth inLocalRule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10109

Summary Calendar

ONESIMUS RODGERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BOBBY E. SCOTT, in his Capacity

as a District Director, Dallas

District, for the IRS, and/or in

his Individual Capacity,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:95-CV-649-A)

June 27, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

OnesimusRodgers, a federal employeewith the InternalRevenueService, appealsthe
1McAuliffe v. Rice, 966 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1992); 5 U.S.C. § 2302.

2Broadway v. Block, 694 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1982).

3Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (1976).

4Tolbert v. United States, 916 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1990).

5Hampton v. Internal Revenue Serv., 913 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1990).

2

dismissal,forfailure ofsubjectmatterjurisdiction, of hissuit againstBobbyE. Scott, District

Director of the IRS, in an action under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.

§§ 702-04; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; and the fifth

amendment. Rodgers contends that the district court had jurisdiction because he exhausted

all necessary administrative remedies before filing his action in federal court.

TheCivilServiceReformActis a comprehensive statutewhich provides an integrated

system of administrative and judicial review of adverse personnel actions such as

discrimination.1 Rodgers may not circumvent the detailed scheme of the CSRA by invoking

the more general APA.2 Title VII is the exclusive judicial remedy for a federal employee’s

claim of discrimination.3 Rodgers failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under this

legislative scheme thereby precluding judicial review.4

Rodgers contends that the district court erred in dismissing the action against Scott

in his individual capacity. Rodgers may not trump the administrative exhaustion

requirements by bringing a tort action against his supervisor individually.5

Rodgers also maintains that the district court abused its discretion in granting

defendant’s motion to transfer venue from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
6See Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank, 811 F.2d 916 (5th Cir. 1987); 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f)(3).

3

to the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in granting that motion because the action properly could have been brought in the

Fort Worth Division.6

AFFIRMED.