alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
03 . 07 . 2017

Contact CVB Program and Information Management and Security 

(PIMS) at: CVB.PIMS@aphis.usda.gov

Electronic Outlines are on the way for the NCAH Portal... will you be ready?

On March 16th, 2017 the CVB will start accepting electronic submissions for Outlines of Production and Special Outlines via the NCAH Portal. 

Once you’re done doing your happy dance, head over to the CVB website (or use the links below) because a formal announcement and new 

portal user guides have been published there and you’re going to want to read them. We encourage you to start getting familiar with the 

processes before the 16th rolls around so you’re ready to go. Read the user guides, watch the videos, ask questions!

Helpful Tips for using the 

Portal - 2007s, 2008s & 

More

You Asked, We Answered

What we’re working on for future issues...

Vol. 2 ISSUE 3

NCAH PORTAL news for CVB

We need questions for our “You 

Asked, We Answered” section! 

What do you want or need to know 

about the NCAH Portal?

Digital Signatures - What 

you need to know

Here’s a list of the materials related to electronic Outlines:

 CVB Notice 17-03

 User Guide #17 

 User Guide #18 

 User Guide #19

 User Guide #20 

 User Guide B 

Expanded NCAH Portal Functionality: Electronic Outlines of Production and Special Outlines

Requirements for Electronic Outline of Production and Special Outline Templates

Creating and Revising Electronic Outlines

Versioning Electronic Outlines

Submitting Outlines to Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing (PEL)

Outline Templates

The NCAH Portal Guidance page also has videos to accompany the user guides.

Be sure to read CVB Notice 17-03 for important information on staging submissions so that the CVB can 

process your Outlines as efficiently as possible.

Please direct any questions to cvb.pims@aphis.usda.gov
# C_2010134EN.01000502.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA v European Commission

(Case C-414/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Reduction of financial assistance - General allocation for the purpose of implementing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises - Deadline for completion of investment projects - Discretion of the Commission)

2010/C 134/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 8 July 2008 in Case T-176/06 Sviluppo Basilicata v Commission by which the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) dismissed its application for, first, annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1706 of 20 April 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund in favour of an overall allocation for the purpose of implementing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises operating in the Basilicata Region of Italy, granted under the Community support framework for Community structural assistance in the regions of Italy covered by Objective 1 and, second, damages for the harm purportedly caused by that decision

Sviluppo Basilicata

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4407 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4407

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3s101 Rockwell Street in Warrenville, Illinois, as the ``Corporal 
             Jeffery Allen Williams Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 2017

    Mr. Hultgren (for himself, Mr. Rush, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. 
Lipinski, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Danny K. Davis of 
   Illinois, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schneider, Mr. 
   Foster, Mr. Bost, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. 
Kinzinger, Mrs. Bustos, and Mr. LaHood) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3s101 Rockwell Street in Warrenville, Illinois, as the ``Corporal 
             Jeffery Allen Williams Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CORPORAL JEFFERY ALLEN WILLIAMS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3s101 Rockwell Street in Warrenville, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Corporal Jeffery Allen Williams Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
Jeffery Allen Williams Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket** Docket Number: F AA- 2014 - 0568 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM075AD
ZODIAC 766983 - 28 - 002 --- 10/15/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
NO. 07-04-0015-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JANUARY

16, 2004

______________________________ IN RE GALE GR EENSTREET AND J UDY LAWRENCE AS CO- TRUSTEES OF THE A. M. & J., COLDW ATER, AND RED RIVER TRUSTS, RELATO RS

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING Gale Greenstreet a nd Judy Lawrence, as Co-Trustees, relators, proceeding pro se, commenced this orig inal proceedi ng by filing a “Complaint for an Emergency Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunc tive Rel ief [And Damages]. ” We dismiss the complaint for want of juri sdiction. Re lators reference an opini on and judgment i ssued by thi s Court on M arch 1 5 , 1995, in Cause Number 07-94-0178-CV and request that we enforce that judgment. However, the judgment of an app ellate court is enforced at the tri al court lev el after the mandate from the appellate court is received by the trial court clerk and the process of enforcing the judgment commen ces. Mandate in our 1995 decisio n was iss ued on May2

24, 1995. Relator

s also req uest that wegrant an emer gency pr eliminary injunction an d a permanent injunct ion. The jurisdic

tion of a court of appeal s to grant inj unctive r elief is limi ted to preserv ing or enforcing it

s jurisdi ction over

the merits of a pendi ng appeal and not for the purpose of granting relief on equi table grounds nor for protect ing a lit igant. See Pace v. Mc Ewen, 604 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex.C iv.App.–San A nto nio 1980, no writ); see also Nelson v. Blanco Independent

School Dis trict, 386 S.W .2d 636, 637 (Tex.Civ.App.–Aust in 1965, no writ). Because our mandate in the referenced proceeding was is sued in 1995, we have no jurisdict ion to grant

the relief req uested. Accordingl y, relato rs’ complai nt is dismis sed for want of j urisdicti on. Per Curiam
----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 11/09/2007 07:02 AM -----

"Borrelli,

Frank"

<Frank_Borrelli@ To

americanchemistr Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

y.com> cc

11/08/2007 04:35 Subject

PM RE: Question About Compounding

Greg, I was traveling this week and wanted to modify the flow sheet to

correctly show the emission points for the PVC process before sending to

you. I have attached a revised presentation with the corrected flow

sheet slide. Regarding compounding, that is often the next step

following the manufacturing of PVC resin. It is a completely different

manufacturing step and is purely the mixing of PVC resin with other

additives; colorants, stabilizers, and other additives. It is usually

not part of a PVC manufacturing facility but is completed in separate

mixing equipment and mostly carried out in facilities not located where

the PVC is manufactured. PVC compounding can result in the polymer

being mixed with ingredients that make the polymer useful in rigid

applications like pipe and in flexible application like in the

manufacturing of wire and cable jacketing and insulation materials. Some

other polymers would similarly require mixing of colorants and

stabilizers but may be carried out in different equipment. I have

attached a paper on PVC pipe manufacturing and the compounding step in

that process. As HAPs are not usually introduced and emitted from these

processes, I am not sure how they fit into the standards. I would think

that these facilities that involve a specific HAP material would fall

under the regulatory requirements for processing that specific material.

With PVC pipe we did not find any HAPs in the compounding and

manufacturing of the pipe materials.

Regards

From: Nizich.Greg@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Nizich.Greg@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 2:43 PM

To: Borrelli, Frank

Subject: Question About Compounding

Hi Frank,

I'm trying to get a better understanding of how compounding fits in with

the PVC operations. I know Ken Akins said it was essentially mixing dry

ingredients. Do you know if this process is also done with other

polymer resins?

I'm thinking that maybe it's already addressed elsewhere under another

standard so it wouldn't even be a concern here.

Also, were you going to send us a copy of the meeting presentation?

Thanks.

Greg.

(See attached file: RVCM 101_EPA_Oct 07_final.ppt)(See attached file: 07

06 08 Emmission Paper.pdf)
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 D0 05 8 . HENRY DONALD COLEMAN v . EMNA GRAMI

.

Th e t ri al co u rt en t ered t h e fi n al ju d g m en t an d d ecree o f d iv o rce i n th is cas e o n J u l y 1 2
, 2 0 1 7

. On Au g u s t 1 4, 2 0 1 7
, Hen ry Co lem an fi l ed t h is ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary

ap peal . Ho wev er, we l ack ju ri s d ict i o n

. To b e t i m el y , a d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 30 d ay s o f en t ry

o f th e o rd er s o u g h t t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5-6 -3 5 (d ). Th e req u i rem en t s o f OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 are ju ri s d i ct i o n al
, an d t h i s Co u rt can no t accep t an ap pl i cat i o n fo r ap p eal n ot

m ad e i n co m

p l i an ce t h erewi t h. Bo

yl e v. S t a t e , 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4
, 7 3 4 (3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 8 9). Becau se t h i s ap p l i cat i on was fi l ed 3 3 d ay s aft er en t ry o f t h e ord er Co l em an

s eek s t o ap p eal
, i t i s u n t i m el y , an d we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co ns i d er i t

. Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s ap p l i cat i o n i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. September 01, 2017

09/01/2017
Docket Index for

EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0280

Section F:

Public Comments on the 

Proposed Action
EP for A2 Furnace;idled 10/07Melter DustCollector for A1Electric MelterA23 Stack; idled 10/07A11 StackA12 Stack
#### Katherine Welter et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Amalia Ales et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

September 24, 1959.

*Samuel Gellman*for plaintiffs.

*Richard W. O’Brien*for defendants.

Joseph M. Conroy, J.

In an action for specific performance plaintiffs move for summary judgment.

On April 7, 1959, by a contract in writing plaintiffs agreed to purchase and defendants agreed to sell a parcel of real property located in Jackson Heights, New York. Defendants operated the property as a rooming house from which they derived their livelihood. In the answer to this action defendants have alleged, as an affirmative defense, that the contract was conditioned upon defendants obtaining other accommodations which would produce a suitable income for them. The written contract contains no such provision. Defendants, in opposition to this motion, state that in February and March of 1959 a real estate broker persistently urged them to sell their property and they reluctantly consented. They did not read the contract before signing it, but they do not claim that such omission was fraudulently induced nor do they claim that they are unable to read. Thereafter they looked for another house, but were unable to find anything suitable, whereupon they sought to return plaintiffs’ deposit and offered to pay plaintiffs’ expenses and damages.

It is apparent that defendants have no defense to this action. The cases cited by them are readily distinguishable. In *Micbar Realty Corp.*v. *Truval Realty Corp.*(202 Misc. 969) the court noted the general rule that a court of equity will refuse to decree specific performance of a contract where performance would produce hardship or injustice not reasonably within the contemplation of the parties at the inception of the contract. In *Gordon*v. *Mazur*(284 App. Div. 289, affd. 308 N. Y. 861) the court withheld specific performance to prevent one party from gaining a windfall at the expense of another who had misconstrued the technical provisions of their contract. In *Scheinberg*
      *735v. *Scheinberg*(249 N. Y. 277) the court stated that specific performance may be withheld where the contract was obtained under practical compulsion and where one of the parties was “ the victim of a conspiracy to defraud her of her property ” (p. 283).

In the instant case there is no suggestion that the contract was obtained by fraud, duress or even mistake. Defendants merely changed their mind about selling their property after the contract was executed. They cannot for this reason deprive plaintiffs of their right to enforce the contract. *(Guokas*v. *Bishara,*57 N. Y. S. 2d 588.)

The motion for summary judgment is granted. Settle order.
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2013-0399

Docket Number

2011-SW-064-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 67A007, Revision 1, dated February 25, 2009

Eurocopter ASB No. 67.00.10, Revision 1, dated February 25, 2009

Eurocopter ASB No. 67.05, Revision 1, dated February 25, 2009

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. AUSTIN SCOTT

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 537, I was 
unavoidably absent due to my flight being canceled. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``No.''
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 538, I was unavoidably absent due to my 
flight being canceled. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 539, I was unavoidably absent due to my 
flight being canceled. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. SAM FARR

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the majority claims that there is no war on 
women, but here is yet another example of their attempt to restrict 
women's access to reproductive health care. H.R. 3803 is quite simply 
another attempt by anti-choice Republicans to reverse the freedoms 
women have gained over the last several decades regarding reproductive 
choice in health care.
  Once again, the majority has sought to restrict women's access to 
reproductive healthcare by threatening doctors with prison (two years) 
and other penalties if they perform abortions after 20 weeks. With 
doctors fearful of yet even more restrictions to their practice, many 
will simply refuse to treat women who want to obtain a safe and legal 
abortion, thus achieving the majority's intended goal.
  Unbelievably, this bill also allows the woman who obtains the 
abortion, the father, or the maternal grandparents to press civil 
charges against the doctor! In addition, there are no exceptions to 
this ban for rape, incest, fetal anomaly, or a woman's health, and with 
only a narrow exception for a woman's life. This bill also uses the 
term ``unborn child'' which is a very slippery slope.
  The fact that H.R. 3803 is blatantly unconstitutional has been over-
looked by the majority. It clearly violates two Supreme Court decisions 
regarding pre-viability and exceptions for a woman's life and health.
  There can be no doubt about the national implications of a bill with 
D.C.'s name on it as a cover for attacking the reproductive rights of 
the Nation's women. The citizen's of the District of Columbia are being 
unfairly attacked. It is absolutely shameful that the sponsors of this 
legislation are trying to impose their will on the women of D.C. 
because they know for a fact they could not pass this policy at the 
national level.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3803 is just another attempt by the majority to 
wage a war upon women--unfortunately, this time it is directed at 
residents of the District of Columbia.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2022024EN.01000201.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 — Fulmen v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-680/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Damage allegedly suffered by the appellant as a result of its name being included and maintained on the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on a claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by restrictive measures taken in decisions adopted pursuant to the CFSP - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

(2022/C 24/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Fulmen (represented by: A. Bahrami, avocat, and N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Boquet and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Fulmen to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fulmen to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---
# C_2010134EN.01000501.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-392/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances - Article 11(1)(c) - Obligation to draw up external emergency plans - Time-limit)

2010/C 134/06

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and A. Sipos, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) — Failure to draw up certain external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishment

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to draw up external emergency plans for all establishments to which Article 9 of Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances applies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to draw up external emergency plans for all establishments to which Article 9 of Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances applies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) thereof;

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

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The Chair will 
entertain 15 further requests for 1-minute speeches from both sides of 
the aisle.

                          ____________________
```