alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021062EN.01000901.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-849/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Special areas of conservation - Article 4(4) - Obligation to establish conservation objectives - Article 6(1) - Obligation to take conservation measures - Decision 2006/613/EC — Mediterranean biogeographical region)

(2021/C 62/09)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed periods all the necessary measures for establishing appropriate conservation objectives and appropriate conservation measures in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory and are included in Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed periods all the necessary measures for establishing appropriate conservation objectives and appropriate conservation measures in relation to the 239 Sites of Community Importance which are on Greek territory and are included in Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---
Exhibit 10.3

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     The Employment Agreement dated as of March 31, 1995 between Leonard Osser
and Milestone Scientific Inc (formerly U.S. Opportunity Search, Inc.) (the
"Employment Agreement") shall be amended as set forth below. Capitalized terms
not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment
Agreement.

(1) ss. 1 "Term of Agreement" shall be deleted and be replaced with the
following paragraph:

          "1. Term of Agreement. Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the
     Company employs Executive and Executive accepts such employment for the
     period commencing on April 1, 1995 and, unless terminated as provided in
     Section 6 herein, terminating March 31, 2000 (the "Employment Term")."

(2) The non-competition period at the end of the Employment Term shall be
extended by revising the first clause of ss.7(b) to read as follows:

     "(b) During the Employment Terms and for a period of two years
     thereafter..."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on February
25, 1997.

                                     MILESTONE SCIENTIFIC INC.

                                     By: /s/ Leonard Osser & Stephen A. Zelnick
                                         --------------------------------------
                                             Leonard Osser & Stephen A. Zelnick

                                     /s/ Leonard Osser
                                     -----------------
                                     LEONARD OSSER
June 25, 2002

23990

#### H.A. Holdings, Ltd., v. Silva

Affirmed
November 2020

There were 7 surveillance inspections conducted at 7 different sites for a total of 35

fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. The water temperatures continued to decrease in response to the 

cooler temperatures. All sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and were 

scheduled for monthly sampling. No cages were confirmed positive this month.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

December 2019 91 0 21886

January 2020 81 0 21967

February 2020 78 0 22045

March 2020 55 0 23000

April 2020 50 0 23050

May 2020 50 0 23100

June 2020 80 0 23180

July 2020 56 0 23236

August 2020 50 0 23286

September 2020 50 0 23336

October 2020 45 0 23381

November 2020 35 0 23416
June 2, 1997

18810

#### State v. Hutch

Affirmed
South American Cactus Moth Quarantined Areas

7 C.F.R. § 301.55-3 

Last updated: July 15, 2010 

a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Administrator will list as a quarantined 

area in paragraph (c) of this section each State, or each portion of a State, in which the South American 

cactus moth has been found by an inspector, in which the Administrator has reason to believe that the 

South American cactus moth is present, or that the Administrator considers necessary to quarantine 

because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from localities where South American 

cactus moth has been found. Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area only if the 

Administrator determines that: 

1. The State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of the regulated 

articles that are equivalent to those imposed by this subpart on the interstate movement of 

regulated articles; and 

2. The designation of less than the entire State as a quarantined area will be adequate to prevent the 

interstate spread of the South American cactus moth. 

b) The Administrator or an inspector may temporarily designate any nonquarantined area in a State as a 

quarantined area in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph (a) of this section. The 

Administrator will give a copy of this regulation along with written notice of the temporary designation 

to the owner or person in possession of the nonquarantined area, or, in the case of publicly owned land, 

to the person responsible for the management of the nonquarantined area. Thereafter, the interstate 

movement of any regulated article from an area temporarily designated as a quarantined area will be 

subject to this subpart. As soon as practicable, the area will be added to the list in paragraph (c) of this 

section or the designation will be terminated by the Administrator or an inspector. The owner or person 

in possession of, or, in the case of publicly owned land, the person responsible for the management of, 

an area for which designation is terminated will be given written notice of the termination as soon as 

practicable. 

c) The following areas are designated as quarantined areas: The States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.
# C_2020313EN.01002301.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Crédit agricole v ECB

(Case T-576/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Administrative pecuniary penalty imposed by the ECB on a credit institution - First subparagraph of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Continued breach of capital requirements - Negligent breach - Retroactive application of less severe enforcement legislation - Absence - Rights of defence - Amount of the penalty - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 313/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, A. Pizzolla and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of the ECB of 16 July 2018, taken pursuant to Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the ECB concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63) and imposing on the applicant an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 4 300 000 for continued breach of the capital requirements laid down in Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2013 L 208, p. 68, and OJ 2013 L 321, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018 in so far as it imposes on Crédit Agricole SA an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 4 300 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision ECB/SSM/2018-FRCAG-75 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 16 July 2018 in so far as it imposes on Crédit Agricole SA an administrative pecuniary penalty of EUR 4 300 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Crédit Agricole to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Crédit Agricole to bear its own costs;

| 4. | Orders the ECB to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the ECB to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---
#### Jesse Brown GRAVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harley G. LAPPIN, Commissioner, Federal Bureau of Prisons; B.A. Bledsoe, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-6655.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 29, 2005.

Decided Oct. 6, 2005.

Jesse Brown Graves, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jesse Brown Graves, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Graves v. Lappin,*No. CA-04-50-1-FPS (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 25, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
USDA Expands *Defend the Flock*Campaign with New Resources for All Poultry Growers

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has expanded its *Defend the Flock*program to educate all poultry growers about best practices in biosecurity. This comprehensive public education program provides new resources to ensure that all growers have the information they need to keep flocks safe from infectious diseases.

APHIS is introducing the expanded program to combat the increasing risk of serious disease outbreaks. Biosecurity, which encompasses structural and operating practices to block diseases and the pathogens that carry them, has proven to be the most effective way to protect the nation’s poultry, property, and people.

According to Dr. Jack Shere, Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services, Chief Veterinary Officer, APHIS, “*Defend the Flock*taps into the pride, purpose and sense of responsibility all poultry growers share. The health of our nation’s poultry is a responsibility that must be embraced by all growers – from operators of large commercial enterprises to owners of small backyard flocks. This program will rally commercial growers and backyard enthusiasts to adopt best practices in biosecurity and keep our flocks safe from infectious diseases.”

The *Defend the Flock*program includes checklists, videos, and other resources that reflect the knowledge, insights, and experience of USDA, veterinarians, poultry owners, growers, scientists, and other experts. All *Defend the Flock*materials are available at no charge 24/7 at the *Defend the Flock*Resource Center. For more information on the program, visit **usda.aphis.gov/animalhealth/defendtheflock****.**

Follow ***Defend the Flock***on **Facebook**and **Twitter**for practical tips about keeping poultry healthy and new additions to the Resource Center.
IPHIS Access Instructions 

Prerequisites

Computer setup 

To access USDA PPQ’s IPHIS system you need, at a minimum, Internet access and a web browser. This includes 

Microsoft, Linux or Apple operating systems. IPHIS has been tested with Chrome, Microsoft Internet Explorer 

10.0, IE 8.0 (in compatibility mode), and Mozilla Firefox 3.6. 

Adobe Flash is required to use IPHIS’ mapping feature. 

Microsoft Excel is required for managing spreadsheets used to upload data. In testing, many third-party 

Excel imitators do not correctly emulate “.xls/.xlsx” file formats and therefore have not worked when uploading 

data to IPHIS. 

Request Logon Account 

You are required to have a USDA eAuthentication (eAuth) account to use IPHIS. If you are an employee of USDA 

you should already have Level 2 eAuth access for other USDA programs such as AgLearn and GovTrip. If you are 

a cooperator with access to USDA’s PCIT or ePermits, you have a Level 1 eAuth access and do not need to 

request an account. 

Register at https://www.eauth.usda.gov/eauth/b/usda/registration if you need eAuth credentials. 

Note: an e-mail account, whether work or personal, is required. 

State and county cooperators will request Level 1 Access. Approvals typically occur within the hour. 

Set IPHIS Access and Role(s) 

Log on first time to request access 

Go to https://iphis.aphis.usda.gov to log into IPHIS using your eAuth username (this will display as User ID). First 

time access requires filling out a “New User Role Request” form (Figure 1). Fill in all required fields, as indicated 

by the *symbol, then click “Request New Role.” You’ll receive e-mail notification once the Security Officer 

approves. Contact IPHIS Technical Support if your office is not listed in the Office drop-down field. 

Select ONLY if you are the designated person 

in your office for ordering survey supplies. 

Click here to 

submit your 

request. 

Make sure the correct 

Office is selected 

This should be the same as your user ID 

Figure 1
Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar) Regulated Articles

7 CFR § 301.45-1 

Last update: July 19, 2006

1. Trees without roots (e.g., Christmas trees), trees with roots, and shrubs with roots and persistent 

woody stems, unless they are greenhouse grown throughout the year. 

2. Logs, pulpwood, and bark and bark products. 

3. Mobile homes and associated equipment. 

4. Any other products, articles, or means of conveyance, of any character whatsoever, when it is 

determined by an inspector that any life stage of gypsy moth is in proximity to such articles and the 

articles present a high risk of artificial spread of gypsy moth infestation and the person in possession 

thereof has been so notified.
# C_2018373EN.01001501.xml

| 15.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/15

---

Action brought on 20 August 2018 — Puma v EUIPO — Destilerias MG (MG PUMA)

(Case T-500/18)

(2018/C 373/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. Trieb and M. Schunke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Destilerias MG SL (Vilanova i la Geltru, Spain)

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 trade mark MG PUMA — Application for registration No 15 108 848

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 in Case R 2019/2017-2.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
# C_2019399EN.01006101.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/61

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — ruwido austria v EUIPO (transparent pairing)

(Case T-649/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark transparent pairing - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2019/C 399/75)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ruwido austria GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: A. Ginzburg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2018 (Case R 2487/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign transparent pairing as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | ruwido austria GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ruwido austria GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---
#### Holt, In re Estate of

17117

10/05/94

Reversed
EJEMPLO: DECLARACIÓN DEL PROPIETARIO/TRANSPORTISTA PARA OVEJAS Y CABRAS

Example: Owner/Hauler Statement for Sheep and Goats

NOMBRE Y DIRECCIÓN DEL PROPIETARIO

Owner Name and Address

NOMBRE Y DIRECCIÓN DE DESTINO

Destination Name and Address

Nombre:

Name

Nombre:

Name

Dirección:

Address

Dirección:

Address

Ciudad/estado/código postal:

City/State/Zip

Ciudad/estado/código postal:

City/State/Zip

Teléfono:

Phone

Teléfono:

Phone

NOMBRE Y DIRECCIÓN DEL TRANSPORTISTA

Hauler Name and Address

Fecha en que los animales se trasladaron:

Date Animals Moved

Nombre:

Name

Dirección:

Address

ID o PIN* de rebaño con tembladera:

*Número de identificación de las instalaciones

*Perseel-ID-nommer

Scrapie Flock ID or PIN Ciudad/estado/código postal:

City/State/Zip

Teléfono:

Phone

INFORMACIÓN SOBRE LOS ANIMALES

Número de 

animales

Number of 

animals

Ovejas o 

cabras 

Sheep or 

Goats

Raza (Breed)

(Si se desconoce: en el caso de las 

ovejas, incluya el color de la cara; en 

el caso de las cabras, incluya el tipo 

de leche, carne y fibra). 

Clase (Class)

(Ovejas o ciervas de sacrificio, carneros o 

ciervos, corderos o cabritos de engorde, 

corderos o cabritos de matadero, etc.) 

Número de ID de 

lote de grupo

(Group Lot ID Number) 

(ID de rebaño—MMDDAA—

número de secuencia)

 Estos animales están en canales de matanza. (These animals are in slaughter channels)

Firma del propietario/transportista (Owner/Hauler Signature):

Por la presente certifico que la información indicada anteriormente es correcta y que el ganado enumerado está debidamente clasificado.
# C_2019213EN.01008403.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/84

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — YS v Commission

(Case T-572/18) (1)

(2019/C 213/84)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---
#### B. B. WOODSON, Trustee, Appellant, v. Bernard P. CHAMBERLAIN, Appellee. In the Matter of Sterling R. DECKER, Bankrupt.

No. 9028.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 8, 1963.

Decided Nov. 18, 1963.

See also 4 Cir., 317 F.2d 245.

William S. Aaron, Jr., Charlottesville, Va. (Walker, Woodson & Aaron, Charlottesville, Va., on brief), for appellant.

Henry E. Belt, Charlottesville, Va., for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The District Court construed the contingent provision for credit on the bond to be operable only with respect to the excess cost of improvements actually accomplished or to be accomplished. Since the improvements were not undertaken, and it now conclusively appears that they never will be undertaken, the District Judge concluded that the contingent provision for credit on the bond was inapplicable.

For the reasons more fully stated by the District Judge in his opinion,* we find his construction of the endorsement on the bond to be correct.

Affirmed.

*

 In the Matter of Sterling R. Decker, Bankrupt, D.C., 211 F.Supp. 761.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 101 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the Coverdell 

education savings accounts to allow home school education expenses, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the Coverdell education savings accounts to allow home 

school education expenses, 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. ALLOWANCE OF HOME SCHOOL EXPENSES AS 

4 QUALIFIED EDUCATION EXPENSES FOR PUR5 POSES OF A COVERDELL EDUCATION SAV6 INGS ACCOUNT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 530(b) 

8 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by add9 ing at the end the following new subparagraph: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 101 IS

1 ‘‘(C) PRIVATE SCHOOL.—For purposes of 

2 this section, the term ‘private school’ includes 

3 any home school that meets the requirements of 

4 State law applicable to such home schools, 

5 whether or not such school is deemed a private 

6 school for purposes of State law.’’. 

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

8 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

9 December 31, 2014. 

10 SEC. 2. COVERDELL EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT CON11 TRIBUTIONS INDEXED TO INFLATION. 

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 530 of 

13 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

14 at the end the following new paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(5) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—In the 

16 case of a taxable year beginning in a calendar year 

17 after 2014, the dollar amount in paragraph 

18 (1)(A)(iii) shall be increased by an amount equal 

19 to— 

20 ‘‘(A) such amount, multiplied by 

21 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter22 mined under section 1(f)(3) for such calendar 

23 year by substituting ‘calendar year 2013’ for 

24 ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) 

25 thereof.’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 101 IS

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

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2014. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS