alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010221EN.01000602.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-492/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax - Reduced rate - Articles 96 and 98(2) - Annex III, point 15 - Legal aid - Services of lawyers - Payment in full or in part by the State)

2010/C 221/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 96 and 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1; ‘the VAT directive’) — Reduced rate of VAT — Categories of services listed in Annex III to the VAT directive which can benefit from a reduced rate — Reduction in the rate of VAT for services provided by lawyers paid by the State under the legal aid scheme

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, in applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the supply of services by avocats, avocats au Conseil d’État et à la Cour de cassation and avoués, for which they are paid in full or in part by the State under the legal aid scheme, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, in applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the supply of services by avocats, avocats au Conseil d’État et à la Cour de cassation and avoués, for which they are paid in full or in part by the State under the legal aid scheme, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

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

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.01.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 21
 
 ENCORIUM GROUP, INC.
 
 
 Names of All Subsidiaries
 
 Encorium Oy
 Encorium Sweden AB
 Encorium Denmark ApS
 Encorium Estonia OU
 Encorium Germany AG
 Encorium Romania SRL
 Encorium Poland Sp.z.o.o.
 UAB Encorium Lithuania
 Progenitor Holding AG,  Switzerland
 Progenitor International Research Corp. U.S.
 Progenitor International Research GmbH, Switzerland
 Progenitor International Research Ltd. Hong Kong
 Progenitor International Research Pvt. Ltd. India
 Progenitor International Research SA, Argentina
 Progenitor International Research SA, Mexico
 Progenitor International Research SA, Panama
# C_2009069EN.01003306.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-367/08) (1)

1

(2009/C 69/78)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.

1

---
WLEDDV

»F API . TFXAS

Houston, Texas J SEP 04 pniR

OHR,STOPHERA.PR/NE

Adriene Sibley ' —=£12*

v. Cause No. 14-15-00718-CV

Seminole Pipeline Co., LLC

Enterprise Products Operating, LLC

First Call Field Service Corp.

TDW Services, Inc.

Appellees

MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE

Adriene Sibley request that this case be transferred to the First Court

of Appeal as Sibley's companion cases (01-15-00682-CV & 01-14-00454-

CV) were filed in the First Court ofAppeals.

This case relates to Sibley's ownership interest in real estate and

01-14-0454-CV related to Sibley's ownership interest in the same real

estate.

I Mrit wi it TX.T In the Fourteenth Court ofAppeals / 14,hg°URT0FAPPEALq

Respectfully submitted

Adriene Sibley

4808 Fairmont Pkwy

Pasadena, Texas 77505

sibleyadriene@yahoo.com

832-420-2071
Certificate of Service

I copy ofthe foregoing Motion to Transfer has been served on the following

parties via certified mail on September 4,2015.

Seminole Pipeline Co., LLC

Enterprise Products Operating

James Freeman

1135 Heights Blvd

Houston, Texas 77008

First Call Field Service Corp.

Cynthia Fronterhouse

8588 Katy Freeway #225

Houston, Texas 77024

TDW Service, INc.

Marquel Sautural

700 Louisiana #400

Houston, Texas77002

(U/<*&**-

Adriene Sibley
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     9

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                          1,187,935
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>        1,128,404
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>              0
<TRADING-ASSETS>              0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>   27,238,804
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>        7,237,691
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>          7,277,109
<LOANS>                                         48,979,883
<ALLOWANCE>                               464,453
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            88,515,836
<DEPOSITS>                                      51,809,154
<SHORT-TERM>                              8,283,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                 26,455,890
<LONG-TERM>                               17,275,367
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        154,861
<OTHER-SE>                                8,702,173
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>      88,515,836
<INTEREST-LOAN>                           3,680,585
<INTEREST-INVEST>                         2,178,904
<INTEREST-OTHER>                          63,677
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                          5,923,166
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                        2,034,069
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        3,417,958
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                     2,505,208
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                        3,696
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                           1,657,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,160,822
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>    794,382
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              794,382
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.85
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  3.07
<LOANS-NON>                                     0
<LOANS-PAST>                                    0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                          409,984
<CHARGE-OFFS>                             16,101
<RECOVERIES>                                    70,570
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                         464,453
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                       0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>       464,453


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 REPORT IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE LAURA 
                               RICHARDSON

  Mr. BONNER, from the Committee on Ethics, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 112-642) in the matter of allegations relating to 
Representative Laura Richardson which was referred to the House 
Calendar and ordered to be printed.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2009267EN.01002002.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/20

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid (Spain)) — Francisco Vicente Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA

(Case C-277/08) (1)

1

(Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Sick leave - Annual leave coinciding with sick leave - Entitlement to take annual leave at another time)

2009/C 267/35

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francisco Vicente Pereda

Applicant:

Defendant: Madrid Movilidad SA

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Employee on sick leave during the period of annual leave allocated by the undertaking as a result of an accident at work which happened before that period of leave began — Right of the worker to take his annual leave during a different period

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or collective agreements which provide that a worker who is on sick leave during a period of annual leave scheduled in the annual leave planning schedule of the undertaking which employs him does not have the right, after his recovery, to take his annual leave at a time other than that originally scheduled, if necessary outside the corresponding reference period.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00107

- CV
City of Weslaco v. Keith C. Livesay

On a ppeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 0435

- 13

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause o n appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. May 19, 2016
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie Riley, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. *674Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Stein-Tex, Inc., Petitioner, and Ide Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

July 2, 1959.

*124
      *Samuel Kalmanash*for petitioner.

*Ostrow, Goldman & Sklaire*for respondent.

Charles A. Loreto, J.

Petitioner moves for a stay of arbitration. It had sold certain fabrics to the respondent under written orders, one dated August 7, 1957, and two dated November 15, 1957, bearing numbers 1100 and 1101. It appears that as of May 28,1958, no deliveries had been made under the order bearing number 1101. Disputes had arisen upon the claim of the respondent that the merchandise delivered was imperfect. As a result, the respondent delivered to the petitioner its general release upon full settlement of all disputes and the payment by the petitioner of the sum of $12,000. Thereafter, deliveries were made to the respondent which are the subject of the arbitration demanded by it.

The parties engaged in no other written contract on or after May 28, 1958, save as hereafter mentioned, and it is petitioner’s contention that none exists, and therefore there is no basis for demand for arbitration.

Upon the basis of the general release no arbitrable issue could arise for by it claims and contracts theretofore existing were wholly dissolved. However, it appears, as respondent contends, that the release, while dated May 28, 1958, was delivered to the petitioner with an accompanying letter, dated June 3, 1959, as follows:

*“*Confirming our conversation I am enclosing the release as per your request.

1' As arranged with you we paid the last invoice to Mill Factors and deducted the last $3000.00 due us. This is in complete and final payment of any losses we sustained or will sustain on the piece goods shipped to us up to May 15th, 1958. All subsequent shipments are guaranteed by you.

“ Both Mr. Bakal and myself hope that this is the end of our problems and the beginning of bigger and better business.”

Thus, the intent and purport and the coverage of the release must be gathered not alone from that document, but from its consideration together with the June 3, 1959 letter.

All matters arising after the contract must be left to the determination of the arbitrator, unless it is clearly established that no arbitrable issue exists. The effect of the general release is thus placed in dispute, despite the fact that petitioner denies the receipt of the letter of June 3, 1959. Such dispute differs from the one present in *Matter of Minkin (Halperin)*(279*125App. Div. 226, affd. 304 N. Y. 617). There, it was contended that the document canceling the agreement containing the provision for arbitration was procured by fraud and duress. Such a claim is entirely independent and must be asserted by plenary suit before arbitration under the original contract may be reached. Here the issue concerns the question whether the release is general and covers the matters in dispute, or is limited only to the disputes having arisen under the contract of August 7, 1957 and the contract of November 15, 1957, bearing number 1100.

The motion is denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

               IN RECOGNITION OF THE OFFICER JEFFREY DICK

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JACKIE SPEIER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Police Officer Jeffrey Dick 
who is retiring after more than three decades of protecting citizens in 
the Bay Area.
   Throughout his career Officer Dick has gone above and beyond the 
call of duty to support fellow officers and to serve our community. He 
began his law enforcement career in 1979 at the Alameda County 
Sheriff's Department and has been an officer at the San Mateo Police 
Department since 1984. He has been a law enforcement liaison and board 
member for the Northern California Chapter of the Concerns of Police 
Survivors, an organization that provides assistance to the families of 
law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty and in that 
capacity he travels around the state to attend funerals of police 
officers and offer their families support. He makes sure they receive 
the benefits due to them from the state of California. As a member of 
the San Mateo Police Officers Association Board of Directors, Officer 
Dick held the position of president three times. For 16 years he served 
as team captain for the San Mateo Critical Incident Stress Management 
Team, a non-profit organization that offers counseling, mentoring and 
follow-up for emergency personnel after crises. In 2010 he assisted 
emergency personnel following the San Bruno fire in spite of his fear 
of fire.
   In March 2003 he received the 2002 Peninsula Lions Club Heroism 
Award related to the pursuit and capture of two bank robbery suspects.
   His interests include Harley Davidson motorcycles and photography. 
His community volunteerism is noteworthy. He volunteers for the 
American Heart Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, and other 
non-profit organizations as a photographer, and he has also volunteered 
at the Ronald McDonald House for more than 22 years.
   In his retirement Officer Dick looks forward to spending more time 
with his wife, Linda Barstow-Dick. Officer Dick has two grown children, 
Erin Kristine Templin and Brian Joseph Dick. He also has a grandson, 
Devin James Templin.
   Although Officer Dick is retiring from a long and meaningful career, 
he will continue to play a vital role in our community. Mr. Speaker, 
Officer Dick has dedicated his life to protecting residents of the Bay 
Area. I ask that the House of Representatives to join me in commending 
him for his extraordinary selflessness and service.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4298 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4298

   To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to allow grazing as a mid-
 contract management practice in the conservation reserve program, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 2017

Mrs. Hartzler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to allow grazing as a mid-
 contract management practice in the conservation reserve program, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``CRP Grazing Flexibility Act''.

SEC. 2. GRAZING AS MID-CONTRACT MANAGEMENT.

    (a) Specified Activities Permitted.--Section 1233(b) of the Food 
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3833(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
        semicolon;
            (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) grazing pursuant to section 1232(a)(5) without any 
        reduction in the rental rate, if the grazing is consistent with 
        the conservation of soil, water quality, and wildlife 
        habitat.''.
    (b) Cost Sharing Payments.--Section 1234(b) of the Food Security 
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(6) Mid-contract management grazing.--The Secretary may 
        not make any cost sharing payment to an owner or operator under 
        this subchapter for any grazing undertaken pursuant to section 
        1232(a)(5).''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2010346EN.01000701.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark)) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Ole Andersen v Region Syddanmark

(Case C-499/08) (1)

1

(Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Non-payment of a severance allowance to workers who are entitled to an old-age pension)

2010/C 346/10

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Ole Andersen

Applicant:

Defendant: Region Syddanmark

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation providing for the payment of a severance allowance for dismissed employees who have been employed for a certain number of consecutive years with the same employer, except where they have reached an age where they are entitled to an old-age pension to which the employer has contributed — Direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2 and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78 of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which workers who are eligible for an old-age pension from their employer under a pension scheme which they have joined before attaining the age of 50 years cannot, on that ground alone, claim a severance allowance aimed at assisting workers with more than 12 years of service in the undertaking in finding new employment.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.

1

---
#### McGurrin, Appellant, *v.*Hudson Coal Company.

*WorTcmen’s compensation*— Findings *of board*— Conclusiveness *of findings.*

In a proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by a widow to recover damages for the death of her husband, a finding of the compensation board that the deceased died of natural causes, and that there was no evidence that there had been “any accident at all,” is conclusive upon the court.

Argued Feb. 24, 1919.

Appeal, No. 41, Jan. T., 1919, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lackawanna Co., June T., 1917, No. 149, dismissing appeal from Workmen’s Compensation Board in case of Mary A. McGurrin v. Hudson Coal Company.

Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer and Kephart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appeal from decision of Workmen’s Compensation Board which reversed an award of the referee in favor of the claimant.

The court dismissed the appeal. Claimant appealed.

*Error .assigned*was in dismissing the appeal.

*William J.*Fitzgerald, with him *Roger J. Dever}*for appellant.

*James If.*Torrey, for appellee.

March 24, 1919:

Per Curiam,

The appellant claims compensation from the appellee on the ground that the death of her husband resulted from an accident which occurred while he was in its employ. The finding of the compensation board is that he died from natural causes, and that there was no evidence that there had been “any accident at all.” This was conclusive upon the court below, and it properly so *231held: Poluskiewicz v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company, 257 Pa. 305.

Appeal dismissed.