alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 – Commission v Czech Republic**

**(Case C‐41/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directives 86/378/EEC and 96/97/EC – Equal treatment for men and women – Incomplete transposition

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (OJ 1986 L 225, p. 40) and Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes (OJ 1997 L 46, p. 20). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes and Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives and Article 54 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis A. McQuiller, Appellant.

— Appeal unanimously dismissed *(see, People v Lesesne,*172 AD2d 1070). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — Attempted Rape, 3rd Degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 786 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that India should 

be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2016 

Mr. PALLONE (for himself and Mr. BERA) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

India should be a permanent member of the United 

Nations Security Council. 

Whereas there are currently 5 permanent members of the 

United Nations Security Council; 

Whereas India is the second most populous country in the 

world with over 1,200,000,000 citizens; 

Whereas the Republic of India is the world’s largest democracy; 

Whereas India has the third largest standing army in the 

world and has demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting regional and global peace by providing tens of 

thousands of troops to United Nations-mandated peacekeeping missions; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 786 IH 

Whereas India has been elected 7 times as a nonpermanent 

member of the United Nations Security Council, and, in 

2010, a majority of the United Nations General Assembly elected the Republic of India to be the Asian representative to the United Nations Security Council; 

Whereas the United States-India relationship is an essential 

partnership supporting global economic and strategic 

policies; and 

Whereas in 2010 and in 2015 President Barack Obama expressed support for a reformed United Nations Security 

Council and India’s entry as a permanent member: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports India’s inclusion as a permanent 

3 member of the United Nations Security Council; and 

4 (2) supports the Obama administration’s con5 tinued work with members of the United Nations to 

6 effect India’s entry as a permanent member of the 

7 Security Council. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Presidential Documents

87891 

Federal Register 

Vol. 88, No. 242 

Tuesday, December 19, 2023 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of December 18, 2023 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Serious Human Rights Abuse and Corruption 

On December 20, 2017, by Executive Order 13818, the President declared 

a national emergency with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world and, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), took related steps to deal with 

the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, 

and economy of the United States. 

The prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that 

have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, 

continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, 

foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the 

national emergency declared on December 20, 2017, must continue in effect 

beyond December 20, 2023. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) 

of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 

1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13818 with 

respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

December 18, 2023. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28106 

Filed 12–18–23; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3395–F4–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_PREZDOC2BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 11, 2010 

# Order

May 11, 2010

139438(47)

TRINA LEE BEATTIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 139438 v COA: 284130 Lapeer CC: 06-037681-NO MARK P. MICKALICH, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by the Michig an Association for Justice
for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in this case is consid ered, and it is GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                        1,962
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                 7,549
<ALLOWANCES>                    169
<INVENTORY>                  10,898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             21,258
<PP&E>                       44,423
<DEPRECIATION>                7,410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               77,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        15,365
<BONDS>                      24,165
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<COMMON>                        637
<OTHER-SE>                   33,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 77,195
<SALES>                       9,038
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             13,907
<CGS>                         6,554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 9,994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              2,711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              516
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 686
<INCOME-TAX>                    281
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             405
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                    481
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                  0.08
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.8

THIS SALE AGREEMENT is made the 15 February 1999

BETWEEN:

(1)  BHC AEROVOX LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED IN ENGLAND UNDER NUMBER 2775957
     WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS 20-21 CUMBERLAND DRIVE, GRANBY INDUSTRIAL
     ESTATE, WEYMOUTH, DORSET, DT4 9TE, ("THE VENDOR"); AND

(2)  BARCLAYS MECANTILE BUSINESS FINANCE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED IN ENGLAND
     UNDER NUMBER 898129 WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT CHURCHILL PLAZA,
     CHURCHILL WAY, BASINGSTOKE, HAMPSIRE RG21 1GP ("THE PURCHASER").

WHEREBY IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:

1.   As obligations separate and independent from any other obligations of the
     Vendor and the Purchaser and subject only to the terms of this Agreement
     and the relevant VAT invoice the Vendor agrees to sell outright and the
     Purchaser agrees to purchase, the equipment described in the Schedule
     attached.

2.   The total price payable by the Purchaser to the Vendor for the Equipment
     shall be as stated in the Schedule attached (the "Purchase Price") plus
     value added tax.

3.   Full title to and risk in the Equipment shall pass to the Purchaser from
     the Vendor on payment of the Purchase Price plus value added tax.

4.   In consideration of the Purchaser entering into this Agreement, the Vendor
     hereby represents and warrants to the Purchaser that:

     (i)   the entering into of this Agreement by the Vendor and the due and
           proper performance of its obligations hereunder will not conflict
           with or result in a breach of any term of or constitute a default
           under or result in the creation or imposition of any lien security
           interest, charge or encumbrance upon the Equipment;

     (ii)  the description and other details of the Equipment set out in the
           Schedule attached are accurate and the Equipment is complete and of
           satisfactory quality and it for its purpose;

     (iii) the Vendor is the legal owner of the Equipment free and clear of all
           liens, Mortgages, charges and encumbrances; and

                                                                             125
<PAGE>

     (iv)  there are no outstanding disputes claims or proceedings relating to
           or arising from the condition, possession or operation of the
           Equipment.

5.   This Agreement shall be governed by English law.

IN WITNESS whereof this Agreement has been entered into the day and year first
before written.

                                                                             126
<PAGE>

SCHEDULE


Equipment                          Serial No.                 Purchase Price

Plant & Machinery as documented on                    (pound)764,975.06 plus VAT
Agreement Number 64/46577987-5





SIGNED for and on behalf of BHC Aerovox Ltd.



By:               Julian Boardman

Title:            Financial Director



SIGNED for and on behalf of
BARCLAYS MERCANTILE BUSINESS FINANCE LIMITED



By:               P. A. Hyman

Title:            Team Leader

                                                                             127
# C_2009082EN.01000701.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta (Republic of Latvia)) — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-93/08) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 - Article 11 - Simplified procedure of abandoning goods for destruction - Prior determination whether an intellectual property right has been infringed - Administrative penalty)

(2009/C 82/12)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schenker SIA

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 11 of Council Regulation No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7) — Simplified procedure of abandoning goods for destruction without first determining whether there has been an infringement of an intellectual property right under law — National legislation providing that an administrative penalty be imposed where the goods declared infringe an intellectual property right

Operative part of the judgment

The initiation, with the agreement of an intellectual property right-holder and of the importer, of the simplified procedure laid down in Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, does not deprive the competent national authorities of the power to impose, on the parties responsible for importing those goods into the Community customs territory, a ‘penalty’, within the meaning of Article 18 of that regulation, such as an administrative fine.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.

1

---
### PMN Substance A Estimated Composition **PM N substance A**  is the sodium salt of a sulfated branched and linear alcohol propoxylate. The branched and linear alcohol propoxylate is defined by CAS num ber 958238 - 74 - 9. The branched and linear alcohol propoxylate is sulfated using standard methods and then neutralized with aqueous sodium hydroxide. Wa ter m ay

be added to adjust the viscosity of the final product. This makes a 20% to 70% active material, most preferred 27 - 30% active, (PMN substance A) in water. Afte r sulfation and neutralization to make PMN Substance A, there remains a sm all am ount of free oil (non sulfated propoxylate) remaining. This will vary with the sulfation severity. In laboratory experiments this is typically less than 3%.



### REPRESENTATIVE S **TRUCTURES PMN Substance A (100% active basis)**  **R -**  **O -**  **(CH**

**2** 

### CH(CH

**3** 

### )O) **n** 

### SO **3** 

### Na **n** = targeted 4 or 8 but may range from 1 to 20, actual

distribution 1 to 30 **R** = C12 to C13 branched and linear alkane (from the alcohol) The material is described by CAS # 958238 - 81 - 8 

### 97 **- 99%** 

**R -**  **O -**  **(CH**

**2** 

### CH(CH

**3** 

### )O) **n** 

### H **n** = targeted 4 or 8 but may range from 1 to 20, actual

distribution 1 to 30 **R** = C12 to C13 branched and linear alkane The material is described by CAS # 958238 - 74 - 9 

### ≤ **3%**
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86134-86135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27154]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-11367-02-R6]


Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the State of 
Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final approval.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Texas is revising its 
approved Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program. Texas has 
adopted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water rules 
for the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) and Ground Water Rule (GWR). 
Therefore, EPA has approved these PWSS program revision packages 
following a public hearing period.

DATES: Decision for approval of Texas PWSS program revision is final on 
December 12, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jos[eacute] G. Rodriguez, EPA Region 
6, Drinking Water Section (6WD-DD) at 1201 Elm St, Dallas, TX 75270, or 
by telephone at

[[Page 86135]]

(214) 665-8087, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5f7cac1d7ccc2d0c0df8befcad6c0e5c0d5c48bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99cbf6fdebf0feecfce3b7d3f6eafcd9fce9f8b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 5, 2023, EPA published notice of 
tentative approval and solicitation of requests for public hearing (88 
FR 69178). No timely or appropriate requests for public hearing were 
received within the 30-day period. Therefore, EPA issues final approval 
of the Texas PWSS program revisions effective on December 12, 2023.
    Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended 
(1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations.

    Dated: December 6, 2023.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2023-27154 Filed 12-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2019413EN.01004801.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — US v ECB

(Case T-255/18) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Fixed-term contract - Contract for an indefinite period - Refusal to reclassify a fixed term contract as a contract for an indefinite period - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

(2019/C 413/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: US (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and M. Rötting, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, first, annulment of the ECB’s decision not to reclassify the applicant’s contract as a contract for an indefinite period and, secondly, compensation in respect of the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders US to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders US to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER JONES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

MATTHEW CATE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 13-56829

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01896-JM-DHB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Jeffrey T. Miller, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 9, 2014

Pasadena, California

Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BELL, District Judge.** 

Petitioner Christopher Jones’s federal habeas petition was dismissed as

untimely. The district court granted a certificate of appealability solely as to the

question whether Jones was entitled to equitable tolling. Jones timely appealed. 

FILED

JAN 22 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
We review de novo the dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus as

time-barred; we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. Forbess

v. Franke, 749 F.3d 837, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). We reverse and remand for

consideration of the merits of Jones’s habeas petition.

Under Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099–1100 (9th Cir. 2010), Jones

showed that (1) his mental impairment rendered him personally unable to prepare a

habeas petition and (2) his mental impairment made it impossible to meet the filing

deadline under the totality of the circumstances, including reasonably available

access to assistance. The district court correctly found that Jones satisfied the first

prong of the Bills test because Jones’s mental state rendered him unable personally

to prepare a habeas petition and effectuate its filing. 

However, the district court erred in finding that Jones did not act diligently

in pursuing available remedies. The district court held that Jones failed the second

prong of the Bills test because between November 19, 1998, when Jones’s

conviction became final, and August 29, 2009, when Jones filed his federal habeas

petition, Jones filed multiple state habeas petitions and sought assistance from

other inmates to draft correspondence, complete paperwork, and file prison

grievances. Based on these filings, the district court found that Jones was able to

2
seek assistance from others and that his lack of diligence, not his mental

impairment, was the but-for cause of his failure timely to file. 

Rather, the only inference which arises is that he was incapable of asking for

help in filing a federal habeas petition. Such help was not offered with respect to a

possible federal habeas petition until 2009. Therefore, Jones’s mental impairment

was the but-for cause of Jones’s failure timely to file.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      15,896,560
<SECURITIES>                                17,632,072
<RECEIVABLES>                                  150,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,438,493
<PP&E>                                       3,737,861
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,315,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,935,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,836,185
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        85,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,256,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,935,326
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,374,345
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,733,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,557
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,470,099)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,470,099)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,470,099)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.50)
        

</TABLE>