alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020061EN.01002601.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — Zotkov v Commission

(Case T-457/18) (1)

(Civil Service - Contractual agents - Remuneration - Family benefits - Request to treat a person as a dependent child - Conditions of grant - Factors to take into account in the calculation of maintenance expenditure - Error in law)

(2020/C 61/31)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Rosen D. Zotkov (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Stankov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: Y. Marinova and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for the grant of the allowance for a person treated as a dependent child and, second, review by the Commission of that decision, after correction of the financial calculation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Rosen D. Zotkov to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Rosen D. Zotkov to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---
20625

#### State v. Robin

Affirmed
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 236 (Monday, December 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[OMB Control No. 2900-0500]

Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: 
Mandatory Verification of Dependents

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 
this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), 
Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of 
information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature 
of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it 
includes the actual data collection instrument.

DATES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Refer to 
``OMB Control No. 2900-0500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise 
and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email [email protected]. 
Please refer to ``OMB Control No. 2900-0500'' in any correspondence.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 38 CFR 3.652.
    Title: Mandatory Verification of Dependents (VA Form 21-0538).
    OMB Control Number: 2900-0500.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: VA Form 21-0538 is primarily used to request verification 
of the status of dependents for whom additional compensation is being 
paid to veterans.
    No substantive changes have been made to this form. The respondent 
burden has decreased due to the estimated number of receivables 
averaged over the past year.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The Federal Register Notice with a 
60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of 
information was published at 88 FR 69683-69684 on October 6, 2023.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 20,541.
    Estimated Average Burden per Respondent: 10 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: One time.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 123,246.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Maribel Aponte,
VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data 
Governance Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2023-27052 Filed 12-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
```
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

The Board of Directors 

MAF Bancorp, Inc. 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.’s 33-79110, 333-61792, 333-72863, 333-72865 and 333-83534) on Form S-8of MAF Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 28, 2003, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of MAF Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations,changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of MAF Bancorp, Inc. 

 

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for goodwill in2002. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

March 11, 2003
# C_2019093EN.01002501.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana (Italy) lodged on 22 November 2018 — FW, GY v U.T.G. — Prefettura di Lucca

(Case C-726/18)

(2019/C 93/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: FW, GY

Defendant: U.T.G. — Prefettura di Lucca

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 20(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU (1) preclude an interpretation of Article 23 of Legislative Decree No 142/2015 as meaning that conduct that infringes general rules of national law, not specifically reproduced in reception centre rules, may also constitute a serious breach of those rules if it potentially disrupts life within the reception centres?
  In the event of an affirmative answer, the following further question is referred to, and requires an answer by, the Court: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 20(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU (1) preclude an interpretation of Article 23 of Legislative Decree No 142/2015 as meaning that conduct that infringes general rules of national law, not specifically reproduced in reception centre rules, may also constitute a serious breach of those rules if it potentially disrupts life within the reception centres?

In the event of an affirmative answer, the following further question is referred to, and requires an answer by, the Court:

| 2. | Does Article 20(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU preclude an interpretation of Article 23 of Legislative Decree No 142/2015 as meaning that conduct on the part of the applicant for international protection that does not constitute a criminal offence punishable under the laws of the Member State may also be taken into consideration for the purpose of withdrawing reception measures, if that conduct might nevertheless potentially disrupt life within the centre in which the persons concerned are placed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 20(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU preclude an interpretation of Article 23 of Legislative Decree No 142/2015 as meaning that conduct on the part of the applicant for international protection that does not constitute a criminal offence punishable under the laws of the Member State may also be taken into consideration for the purpose of withdrawing reception measures, if that conduct might nevertheless potentially disrupt life within the centre in which the persons concerned are placed?

---

(1)  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96).

---
#### J. A. Holloman, Plaintiff in Error, v. Jacksonville Development Company, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.

A Writ of Error to a Judgment of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Francis B. McGarry and Gibbons, Maxwell, McGarry & Daniel, for Plaintiff in Error;

Reynolds & Rogers, for Defendant in Error.

Writ of Error dismissed on praecipe of counsel for plaintiff in error, January 22, 1915.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of E Com Ventures, Inc. (the Company)
of Form 10-Q for the period ending November 2, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ilia
Lekach, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

|   |  |                                                                                                                                                     
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
|  
|2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|                  |  |                                    
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|                  |  | By: /s/ Ilia Lekach                
|                  |  |                                    
|December 16, 2002 |  | Ilia Lekach
Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>  

                       RELEASE OF IRREVOCABLE PROXY
                        (COUPLED WITH AN INTEREST)

  KNOW ALL MEN  BY  THESE  PRESENTS:  that RONALD H. COLE ("Cole") for and
in consideration of good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged by his signature, does hereby fully release, terminate,
cancel, acquit and forever discharge 40,000 shares of Brown Disc Products
Company, Inc. ("BD") stock from that certain Irrevocable Proxy (Coupled  With 
An Interest) dated September 7, 1995 (the "Proxy"), a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A", for the benefit of Angenette N. Rider
("Rider"), which Release shall become effective immediately.

  Cole shall cause the Secretary of BD to reissue to Rider on the dates
specified above, a certificate or certificates evidencing 40,000 shares which
shares will not contain any restrictive legend upon  delivery  to  counsel 
for BD of the certificate  currently representing the shares.

  The terms of this Release are contractual in nature and shall bind and 
benefit Rider and Cole, and their respective heirs, personal representatives,
successors and assigns.

  In the event of any dispute between Rider and Cole concerning this
Release, or in the event of any action to enforce this Release or to collect
damages on account of any breach of the obligation provided for herein, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party, all costs
and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in such
litigation as well as all additional costs of collecting any judgement
rendered in such action.

  DATED this 24th day of April, 1996.


                                    /s/  Ronald H. Cole
                                    ----------------------
                                    RONALD H. COLE
# C_2019025EN.01006101.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/61

---

Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Werner v EUIPO — Merck (fLORAMED)

(Case T-695/18)

(2019/C 25/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Stefan Werner (Baldham, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark ‘fLORAMED’ — Registration No 15 336 639

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 September 2018 in Case R 197/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, as well as the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 November 2017, to reject the application for a trade mark in respect of all the goods claimed, which upheld the opposition brought by the opposing party on 7 October 2016. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, as well as the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 November 2017, to reject the application for a trade mark in respect of all the goods claimed, which upheld the opposition brought by the opposing party on 7 October 2016.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
August 27, 2002

24763

#### State v. Faletogo

Affirmed
FORM 10-Q
                                  AMENDMENT 1    
                     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                          Washington, D.C. 20549

(Mark One)

x    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended         July 31, 1996

                                        OR

     TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from            to  

For Quarter Ended         Commission file number    0-19633


                                   ENGLE HOMES, INC.
        (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


      FLORIDA                                   59-2214791
           
(State or other jurisdiction of          (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)           Identification No.)

   123 N.W. 13th Street
   Boca Raton, Florida                                33432
(Address of principal executive offices)            (Zip code)

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)(561) 391-4012
                                       NONE      
     (Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if
      changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all
reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file
such report(s), and (2) has been subject to filing requirements
for the past 90 days. 
YES   x     NO      

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of July 31, 1996:
6,929,200


<PAGE>
                                                        
                            SIGNATURES


                    Pursuant to the requirements of the
                    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
                    registrant has duly caused this report
                    to be signed on its behalf by the 
                    undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
                                                  


                              ENGLE HOMES, INC.
                                (Registrant)


Date:  December 9, 1996                       \s\ ALEC ENGELSTEIN
                                                  Alec Engelstein
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                                        


Date:  December 9, 1996                        \s\ DAVID SHAPIRO
                                                   David Shapiro
                                         Chief Financial Officer
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE 20-12

TO: Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants

Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics

Veterinary Services Leadership Team

FROM: Byron Rippke

Director

SUBJECT: Veterinary Vaccines Targeting SARS-CoV-2 Virus in Mink

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this notice is to inform interested parties that the Center for 

Veterinary Biologics (CVB) is accepting veterinary biologics product license 

and permit applications for veterinary biological products used to vaccinate 

mink against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

II. BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 is a positive single-stranded enveloped RNA coronavirus that 

causes mild to lethal respiratory illness in some species of animals and is

responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic disease in humans. Mink are highly 

susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, and there is evidence of high transmissibility

between mink and mink farms causing high morbidity and mortality. The disease 

has been reported on mink farms in several countries including the United States.

Although there is evidence for spread of viral infection from humans to cats and 

dogs, at this point there is very limited evidence indicating disease spread 

between cats and dogs in non-laboratory settings. Currently CVB is not 

accepting license applications for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for use in dogs or cats 

because data do not indicate such a vaccine would have value. At this time, CVB

will support research and development activities for SARS-CoV-2 veterinary 

biologics in any species, such as requests to ship experimental product. CVB is 

closely monitoring the situation and may re-evaluate as additional information 

becomes available. However, veterinary biologics licenses or permits will not be 

granted for species other than mink without more evidence of transmission and 

clinical disease in other species. 

III. ACTION (or POLICY)

Parties interested in licensing or permitting a SARS-CoV-2 for use in mink should 

refer to title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Subchapter E; Veterinary 

Animal and Plant

Health Inspection

Service

Veterinary Services

Center for Veterinary 

Biologics

1920 Dayton Avenue

PO Box 844

Ames, IA 50010

(515) 337-6100
CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 20-12

Page 2

 An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

Services (VS) Memorandum 800.50, Basic License Requirements and Guidelines for 

Submission of Materials in Support of Licensure; and VS Memorandum 800.101, U.S. 

Veterinary Biological Product Permits for Distribution and Sale. This information is 

available on the CVB website:

www.aphis.usda.gov/animalhealth/cvb_regsandguidance

IV. IMPLEMENTATION/ APPLICABILITY

Applications and supporting materials may be submitted to the CVB-Policy, 

Evaluation, and Licensing for review effective immediately.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
June 5, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________
No. 02-20301 Summary Calendar

____________________ LOUIS DONNELL TALBERT,
Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-00-CV-2260)

_________________________________________________________________ Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Louis Donnell Talbert, Texas prisoner # 805926, was convicted
of aggravated robbery. He appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition as t ime-barred. (Talbert's motion to supplement

the record with the state court’s mandate from his direct appeal

and from the denial of his f irst state application for
postconviction relief is DENIED as moot, as discussed infra .)2

Our court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on two
issues: (1) whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issues a
mandate from the denial of a state application for postconviction

relief; and (2 ) whether, for purposes of determining the

limitations period under 28 U. S.C. § 2244(d)(2), the state
application remains pending until the mandate issues.

“The time during which a properly filed application for State
post-conviction or other collateral review

... is pending shall not

be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection”.

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Talbert contends that the state court’s
judgment remains pending until t he mandate issues, or, if no

m andate issues, for 25 days following that judgment pursu ant to

T EX . R. A PP . P. 18.1(b) and 79.1.

We need not determine w hether a state habeas application is
“pending” until either a mandate issues or 25 days from the state

court judgment. First, no mandate from the state court’s denial of

Talbert’s first application for postconviction relief is contained
in the record; and, in response to the motion to supplement the

record with the mandate, the appellee has stated that no mandate
issued. Second, even assuming Talbert was entitled to 25 days of
tolling for the issuance of the mandate pursuant to Rules 18.1(b)

and 79.1, but see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 79.2, he concedes that his § 2254
petition had to have been filed by 11 June 2000. Talbert failed,

however, to file his petition until 26 June, at the earliest.3

Therefore, regardless of whether his state petition remained
“pending”, it was untimely.

Talbert raises several other issues. Because they are beyond

the scope of the COA, we do not address them. E.g. , Lackey v.

Johnson , 116 F.3d 149, 151 (5th Cir. 1997) (review limited to the
issues specified in COA).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED
USDA, APHIS, PPQ

2281 W Heyrend Way

Idaho Falls, ID 83401

Data Source:

USDA APHIS PPQ

USDA FSA

These data, and all the information contained therein, have been collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or by its cooperators on APHIS’ behalf, for restricted

government purposes only and is the sole property of APHIS. See full disclaimer: www.aphis.usda.gov/help/map-disclaimer

United States

Department of

Agriculture

PALE CYST NEMATODE - IDAHO

Regulated Fields - July 13, 2021

0 2.5 5

Miles

0 2.5 5

Kilometers

Date Created:

7/14/2021

[

Document Path: C:\GIS\PCN\Projects\WebMap\2021_0713\PCN Web Map.aprx Coordinate System: GCS WGS 1984

T 01 N

R 32 E

T 01 N

R 33 E

T 01 N

R 34 E

T 01 N

R 35 E

T 01 N

R 36 E

T 01 N

R 37 E

T 01 N

R 38 E

T 01 N

R 39 E

T 01 S

R 32 E T 01 S

R 33 E

T 01 S

R 34 E

T 01 S

R 35 E

T 01 S

R 36 E

T 01 S

R 37 E

T 01 S

R 38 E

T 01 S

R 39 E

T 02 N

R 32 E

T 02 N

R 33 E

T 02 N

R 34 E

T 02 N

R 35 E

T 02 N

R 36 E

T 02 N

R 37 E

T 02 N

R 38 E

T 02 N

R 39 E

T 02 S

R 32 E

T 02 S

R 33 E

T 02 S

R 34 E

T 02 S

R 35 E

T 02 S

R 36 E

T 02 S

R 37 E

T 02 S

R 38 E

T 02 S

R 39 E

T 03 N

R 32 E

T 03 N

R 33 E

T 03 N

R 34 E

T 03 N

R 35 E

T 03 N

R 36 E

T 03 N

R 37 E

T 03 N

R 38 E

T 03 N

R 39 E

AMMON

BASALT

BLACKFOOT

FIRTH

IDAHO FALLS

IONA

SHELLEY

Regulated Fields

Idaho Idaho

Bonneville County

Bingham County