alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009205EN.01001501.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/15

---

Order of the Court of 25 March 2009 — Isabella Scippacercola, Ioannis Terezakis v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-159/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Abuse of dominant position - Allegation of excessive charges applied by the operator of Athens International Airport - Rejection of the complaint - No Community interest)

2009/C 205/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Isabella Scippacercola, Ioannis Terezakis (represented by: B. Lombart, avocat)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Di Bucci and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2008 in Case T-306/05 Isabella Scippacercola and Ioannis Terezakis v Commission of the European Communities, dismissing an application seeking to annul the Commission Decision dated 2 May 2005 refusing to take action on the applicants’ complaint concerning an alleged abuse by Athens International Airport at Spata of its dominant position and its imposition of excessive charges on users

Isabella Scippacercola and Ioannis Terezakis

Commission of the European Communities

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mrs Scippacercola and Mr Terezakis shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mrs Scippacercola and Mr Terezakis shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
# C_2009282EN.01001401.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-504/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/70/EC - Civil servants and politicians - Money laundering - Incomplete transposition)

2009/C 282/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. López-Medel Bascones, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (OJ 2006 L 214, p. 29)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that directive;

| 2. | orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.

1

---
August 31, 2015

Dear Mr. Thain:

This letter is to inform y ou that the following informati on is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-2475). This informati on is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 9/14/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4356 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4356

  To amend title 49, United States Code, to require reporting by the 
   Department of Transportation on requests for funding projects or 
           programs through the Airport Improvement Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2017

Mr. Lewis of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 49, United States Code, to require reporting by the 
   Department of Transportation on requests for funding projects or 
           programs through the Airport Improvement Program.

    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 ``Missed Opportunities in Aviation Act 
of 2017''.

SEC. 2. ANNUAL REPORTING ON MISSED OPPORTUNITIES.

    Section 47105 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting at the end the following:
    ``(g) Annual Reporting on Missed Opportunities.--
            ``(1) In general.--Not later December 31 of each year, the 
        Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that identifies--
                    ``(A) the total number of requests made under this 
                section that were under review during the preceding 
                fiscal year by the Department for funding, in whole or 
                in part, of projects including--
                            ``(i) the number of such requests that were 
                        granted;
                            ``(ii) the number of such requests that 
                        were denied; and
                            ``(iii) the number of such requests that 
                        remained pending at the end of the fiscal year; 
                        and
                    ``(B) of the requests that were denied or remained 
                pending under clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph 
                (A), the requests with the greatest potential for 
                improving aviation in the United States in accordance 
                with section 47103.
            ``(2) Trade secrets and confidential information.--This 
        section does not authorize the Secretary to disclose any 
        information that is a trade secret or confidential information 
        subject to section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code, or 
        section 1905 of title 18, United States Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,059
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  187,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     73,771
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               286,633
<PP&E>                                         196,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                 163,587
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,504,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          491,561
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,390,000
<COMMON>                                     1,773,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,987,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,504,272
<SALES>                                        261,581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               285,446
<CGS>                                          205,848
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                86,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,879
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,879
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,879
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00



</TABLE>
December 2, 2015

Exemption No. 11594 A

Regulatory Docket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 0480

Mr. Patrick Morehead

RDX Aerial Media, LLC

1224 S. Corning Street

L os A ngeles , CA 90035

Dear Mr. Morehead :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated August 3 , 2015, y ou petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of R DX Aerial Media , LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to

your current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5),

61.113(a), 61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

allows the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection

. You requested an

a mendment to add closed

- set motion picture and television filming to operations and the DJI

Inspire 1 and DJI Phantom 3 as additional aircraft

.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public in terest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

. T he

unmanned aircraft authorized in the original grant are comparable in type, size, weight, speed

and operating capabilities to those in this petition

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11594

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrat or, the operator is2

granted an amendment to add new aircraft and closed

- set motion picture and television

filming to its UAS operations.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11594 remain in effect exc ept

as follows. Condition No. 1 has been updated to reflect the additional aircraft

.

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exe mption are li m ited to the DJI S p reading

W i ngs, DJI Inspire 1, and DJI Phantom 3 when weighing less than 55 pounds

i n cluding payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition

or a petit i on to a m end this exe mption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed

- set motion picture and television filming are

permitted.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemp tion.

T his exemption terminates on Ma y 31, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
**Annex 32. Item 10.3.1. – Section 2.2.1. and 2.2.2. of Chapter 2.4.3. Infection with *B. ostreae***

CHAPTER 2.4.3.INFECTION WITH *BONAMIA OSTREAE*

[. . .]

2.2.	Host factors

2.2.1.	Susceptible host species 

Species that fulfil the criteria for listing as susceptible to infection with *Bonamia ostrea* according to Chapter 1.5. of the *Aquatic Animal Health Code* (*Aquatic Code*) are: Ariake cupped oyster (*Magallana* [syn. *Crassostrea*] *ariakensis*), European flat oyster (*Ostrea edulis*)~~,~~ and Chilean flat oyster (*Ostrea chilensis*)~~, and Suminoe oyster (*Magallana*[syn.***Crassostrea] ariakensis*)~~.

2.2.2.	Species with incomplete evidence for susceptibility

Species for which there is incomplete evidence to fulfil the criteria for listing as susceptible to infection with *B. ostreae* according to Chapter 1.5 of the *Aquatic Code* are: Argentinean flat oyster (*Ostrea puelchana*).

In addition, pathogen-specific positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results have been reported in the following species, but no active infection has been demonstrated: beadlet anemone (*Actina equina*), brittle star (*Ophiothrix fragilis*), European sea squirt (*Ascidiella aspersa*), grouped zooplankton and Pacific cupped oyster (*Magallana*[syn.***Crassostrea*]*gigas*).

[...]

____________________________
# C_2010179EN.01000801.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-545/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications - Directives 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC - High-speed internet access provider - Obligation to obtain authorisation for the access tariffs to high-speed internet services and to fix those tariffs on the basis of the costs of the provision of such services - No market analysis)

(2010/C 179/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive)(OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51), and Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) — Imposing on an operator a requirement to obtain authorisation for the tariff for providing retail access services to high-speed internet without a market analysis having been carried out.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | By regulating retail tariffs for access to high-speed internet without carrying out a prior market analysis, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) and Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive); |
| --- | --- |

1.

By regulating retail tariffs for access to high-speed internet without carrying out a prior market analysis, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) and Articles 16 and 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive);

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82 of 4.4.2009

---
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Command Center, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glenn Welstad, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





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 at the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.





It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.








Dated:  November 14, 2011






/s/Glenn Welstad Glenn Welstad
 Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5598-H5599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule 
XX, proceedings will now resume

[[Page H5599]]

on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.

                          ____________________
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Ernest Hill, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant forfeited his right to challenge either the alleged untimeliness or the improper service of the notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 by pleading guilty *(see, People v Taylor,*65 NY2d 1; *see also, People v Campbell,*73 NY2d 481, 486; *People v Prescott,*66 NY2d 216, 219-220, *cert denied*475 US 1150; *People v McBayne,*160 AD2d 735; *People v Marinetti,*148 AD2d 550, *lv denied*74 NY2d 666).

There is no merit to defendant’s contention that his oral and written statements should have been suppressed because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his *Miranda*rights. In reviewing a determination of the suppression court, great weight must be accorded its decision because of its ability to observe and assess the credibility of the witnesses and its findings should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761; *People v Bucknor,*140 AD2d 705, *lv denied*72 NY2d 1043). An accused of subnormal intelligence may effectively waive his or her *Miranda*rights "so long as it is established that he or she understood the immediate meaning of the warnings” *(People v Williams,*62 NY2d 285, 287; *see, People v Matthews,*148 AD2d 272, 274, *lv denied*74 NY2d 950; *People v Bucknor, supra).*"Whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights is a factual question to be determined by the totality of the circumstances, which includes the defendant’s *604limited mental capacity as but one factor” *(People v Matthews, supra,*at 274). Here, the record fully supports the suppression court’s finding of an effective waiver and, accordingly, defendant’s motion to suppress the statements was properly denied. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Finnerty, J. —Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Procedure for Generation of a UV-VIS Spectrum for FEA-1100. 

Operating Conditions

Instrument: Agilent 8453 

Range: 190 to 1100 nm 

Data Interval: 1 nm 

Integration Time: 0.5 sec 

Baseline Correction: On 

Sample 

Concentration/Preparation: 

The sample was diluted 1:2 v/v in 

methanol and analyzed in a 1 cm quartz 

cuvette. 

Spectra Collection 

The baseline was collected by placing methanol in a 1cm quartz cuvette. The cuvette is 

rinsed then filled with sample. The spectrum is then collected versus the baseline. 

Results: 

‐0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

190 390 590 790 990

Absorbance (AU)

Wavelength (nm)

Peak(s) – 

nm Abs 

231 1.76