alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0698 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-136-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Americo RODRIGUEZ-PUENTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40671.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

*65James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s OFfice Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Americo Rodriguez-Puente (Rodriguez) challenges his conviction and the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. Rodriguez correctly concedes that his argument that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that he was subject to only a two-ye ar maximum sentence is foreclosed. *See Shepard v. United States,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005); *Dretke v. Haley,*541 U.S. 386, 124 S.Ct. 1847, 158 L.Ed.2d 659 (2004); *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

Rodriguez’s argument that the district court’s error in sentencing him under a mandatory Guidelines scheme is structural and presumed to be prejudicial is also foreclosed. *See United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.2005). Rodriguez fails to show that his sentence is plain error inasmuch as he points to nothing indicating that the district court would have imposed a lighter sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme. *See United States v. Inman,*411 F.3d 591, 596 (5th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE>

<S>                                                              <C>             <C>
                                                                 State of
Name of Subsidiary                                             Incorporation   % owned
------------------                                             -------------   -------
Broadway Realty Company, LLC                                     Missouri         50
Hereford, LLP                                                    Missouri         50
Oak Lane Associates                                              Texas            50
Oak Lane, L.C.                                                   Texas            50
Oak Lane/GSL & Venture, G.P.                                     Texas            50
Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company             Texas            100
Americo Financial Services, Inc.                                 Texas            100
Americo International Corporation                                Missouri         100
Americo Retirement Services, Inc.                                Missouri         100
Americo Services, Inc.                                           Missouri         100
Broadway Square Redevelopment Company                            Texas            100
College Insurance Group                                          Missouri         100
Financial Assurance Life Insurance Company                       Texas            100
Great Southern Life Insurance Company                            Texas            100
GSSW LM I L.P.                                                   Missouri         100
GSSW LM II L.C.                                                  Missouri         100
GSSW REO Landmark L.P.                                           Texas            100
GSSW WR I, L.P.                                                  Missouri         100
GSSW WR II, L.C.                                                 Missouri         100
GSSW WWA I, L.P.                                                 Missouri         100
GSSW WWA II L.C.                                                 Missouri         100
GSSW-REO Briarwood, L.P.                                         Texas            100
GSSW-REO L.C.                                                    Texas            100
GSSW-REO Westwood Arlington, L.P.                                Texas            100
Landmark Mortgage Company                                        Missouri         100
National Farmers Union Life Insurance Company                    Texas            100
Pension Consultants and Administrators, Inc.                     Texas            100
Riverdale Square-REO, L.P.                                       Texas            100
The Ohio State Life Insurance Company                            Texas            100
United Fidelity Life Insurance Company                           Texas            100
Windrush-REO, L.P.                                               Texas            100
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 791 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 791

 Supporting the recognition of 2016 as the ``Year of Pulse Crops'' and 
  acknowledging the nutritional benefit and important contribution to 
                      soil health of pulse crops.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 2016

Mr. Moolenaar submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
   the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Supporting the recognition of 2016 as the ``Year of Pulse Crops'' and 
  acknowledging the nutritional benefit and important contribution to 
                      soil health of pulse crops.

Whereas the United States will celebrate 2016 as the ``Year of Pulse Crops'';
Whereas the 68th United Nations General Assembly declared 2016 as the 
        International Year of Pulses;
Whereas a pulse crop is a dry, edible seed of a plant in the legume family, 
        including a dry bean, dry pea, lentil, or chickpea;
Whereas pulse crops are grown in abundance in Arizona, California, Colorado, 
        Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North 
        Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming;
Whereas pulse crops are an important component of a nutritious diet and are high 
        in plant-based protein, vitamins, fiber, and minerals, including iron, 
        potassium, magnesium, and zinc;
Whereas pulse crops help prevent serious and chronic illness, including heart 
        disease, cancer, diabetes, and stroke;
Whereas legumes serve as an important rotation crop, keep soil fertile, and 
        improve overall soil health by replenishing nitrogen;
Whereas pulse crops provide food security and nutrition to much of the 
        developing world as low-cost sources of protein; and
Whereas pulse crops are important economic development crops for small farmers, 
        for both domestic production and export potential: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports--
            (1) the recognition of the ``Year of Pulse Crops'';
            (2) the participation by representatives of the Federal 
        Government in events and activities organized pursuant to the 
        observance by the United Nations of the International Year of 
        Pulses; and
            (3) the future funding of programs to support the 
        cultivation and consumption of pulse crops.
                                 <all>
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4445 

To require air carriers to create and make available a concise document 

regarding air passenger rights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2017 

Mr. NOLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require air carriers to create and make available a concise 

document regarding air passenger rights. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 Ths Act may be cited as the ‘‘Airline Consumer Bill 

5 of Rights Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PASSENGER RIGHTS. 

7 (a) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 3 months after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transpor9 tation shall require each air carrier to submit for approval 

10 a 1-page document that accurately describes the rights of 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4445 IH

1 passengers in air transportation, including guidelines for 

2 the following: 

3 (1) Compensation (regarding rebooking options, 

4 refunds, meals, and lodging) for flight delays of var5 ious lengths. 

6 (2) Compensation (regarding rebooking options, 

7 refunds, meals, and lodging) for flight cancellation. 

8 (3) Compensation for mishandling baggage, in9 cluding delayed, damaged, pilfered, or lost baggage. 

10 (4) Voluntary relinquishment of a ticketed seat 

11 due to overbooking or priority of other passengers. 

12 (5) Involuntary denial of boarding and forced 

13 removal for whatever reason, including for safety 

14 and security reasons. 

15 (b) APPROVAL OF GUIDELINES.—Not later than 3 

16 months after each air carrier submits its guidelines for 

17 approval to the Secretary under subsection (a), the air 

18 carrier shall make available such 1-page document on its 

19 website and in written form at all offices and ticket 

20 counters. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Amendment No. 1 to the ZiLOG, Inc. 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan



 Exhibit 10.34 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE ZiLOG, INC. 
 2004 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
  
 Effective as of July 16, 2004, Section 7a. of the ZiLOG, Inc. 2004 
  
 Employee Stock Purchase Plan is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as
follows: 
  
 7. Payroll Deductions. 
  
 a. Subject to Section 6a hereof, a participant in the Plan may, in
accordance with rules and procedures adopted by the Administrator, authorize a payroll deduction of any whole percentage from 1 percent to 15 percent of such participant’s Compensation each pay period (the permissible range within such
percentages to be determined by the Administrator from time to time), not to exceed $25,000 per year. A participant may increase or decrease such payroll deduction rate or cease payroll deductions, by completing and filing with the Employer a
new subscription agreement authorizing a change in payroll deduction rate. Participants shall be limited to one cessation of their payroll deductions per Purchase Period, and one change in their payroll deduction rate (other than cessation of their
payroll deductions) per Purchase Period, provided that the Administrator may, in its discretion, prior to the commencement of any applicable Offering Period or Purchase Period, increase or decrease the number of such changes allowed to be made by a
participant during such Offering Period or Purchase Period. A change in rate shall be effective as soon as administratively practicable following the date of filing of the new subscription agreement. In addition, the Administrator may, in its
discretion, make any changes or adjustments to the foregoing procedures as it deems necessary or appropriate to comply with applicable law or insider trading compliance programs or policies. All payroll deductions made by a participant shall be
credited to such participant’s account under the Plan. No interest shall accrue on payroll deductions.
# C_2021338EN.01000301.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-695/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(a) - Definition of ‘insurance’ transactions and of ‘related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents’ - Article 174(2) - Right to deduction - Proportional deduction - Extended warranties on household electrical appliances and other computer and telecommunications equipment - Definition of ‘financial transactions’)

(2021/C 338/03)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rádio Popular — Electrodomésticos SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 174(2)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with Article 135(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to transactions involving intermediation in the sale of warranty extensions that are performed by a taxable person in the course of its main activity consisting in the sale to consumers of household electrical appliances and other computer and telecommunications equipment, with the consequence that the amount of turnover relating to those transactions must not be excluded from the denominator of the fraction used to calculate the deductible proportion referred to in Article 174(1) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TJANDR A NJATA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-71618 Age n c y No. A097-349-833 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Tja ndra Njata , a native and c itiz e n of Indone s ia , pe titions for re vie wof the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED JAN 03 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e fa c tua l findings. Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e de ny the p e tition for re v i e w. Eve n if Nja

ta we re c re dible , the re c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t his e xpe rie nc e s of disc rim inat ion a nd one random

be ating roseto the le ve l of pa st pe rse c ution. Se e H

alim v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th C ir. 2009); Hox ha v . Ashc roft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th C ir. 2003) (ha ra ssm e nt, thre ats, a

nd one be ating did not c om

pe l finding of pa st pe rse c ution). Substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the

B IA’ s de te rm inat ion tha

t, e ve n unde r a

disfa vore d group a na ly sis, Njata fa ile d to e sta blish suffic ie nt individua

liz e d risk of ha

rm to de m onstra

te a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se e Halim , 590 F.3d a t 979 (insuffic ie nt individualiz e d

risk whe re pe titione r “ fa ile d to offe r any e vide n c e tha

t distinguishe s his e xposure from

those of a l l othe r e thnic C hine se Indone sia ns” ). Ac c ordingly , his a sy lum c la i m

fa ils. B e c a use Njata fa ile d to e sta

blish e ligibility

for a sy l um , he ne c e s sa

rily fa ile d to m e e t the m ore stringe nt sta nda rd for withholding of rem ova l. Se e Ze haty e , 453 F.3d at 1190.

1 2 - 7 1 6 1 8 2Fina lly , Nja ta doe s not ra ise any

argum e nts re ga

rding the de nia l of C AT re lie f. Se e Martine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996) (issue s not supporte d by

argum e nt a

re de e m e d

wa ive d ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D .

1 2 - 7 1 6 1 8 3
# C_2010037EN.01003501.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2009 — Trubion Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Merck (TRUBION)

(Case T-412/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark TRUBION - Earlier Community figurative mark TriBion Harmonis - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 37/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented initially by M. Best and R. Freitag, and subsequently by M. Best and U. Pfleghar, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2008 (Case R 1605/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Merck KGaA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---
# C_2008183EN.01001402.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessische Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2008 — Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt

(Case C-201/08)

(2008/C 183/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hessische Finanzgerichts, Kassel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Plantanol GmbH & Co.KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Darmstadt

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a national provision such as Paragraph 50(1)(1) of the Energy Tax Law (Energiesteuergesetz), as amended by the Biofuel Quota Law (Biokraftstoffquotengesetz) of 18 December 2006, which does not accord an advantage to that part of a fuel blend consisting of a biofuel composed of vegetable oil meeting the DIN V 51605 standard (as it stood in July 2006) contrary to Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (Biofuel Directive) (1), particularly in the light of recitals 10, 12, 14, 19, 22 and 27 therein? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a national provision such as Paragraph 50(1)(1) of the Energy Tax Law (Energiesteuergesetz), as amended by the Biofuel Quota Law (Biokraftstoffquotengesetz) of 18 December 2006, which does not accord an advantage to that part of a fuel blend consisting of a biofuel composed of vegetable oil meeting the DIN V 51605 standard (as it stood in July 2006) contrary to Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (Biofuel Directive) (1), particularly in the light of recitals 10, 12, 14, 19, 22 and 27 therein?

part

blend

1

| 2. | Does the Community law principle of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations require that it should be permissible only in wholly exceptional circumstances for a Member State which adopts rules for the implementation of that directive and, in doing so, has established a promotion scheme consisting of tax advantages spread over several years, to amend that scheme, during the time-limit laid down, to the disadvantage of an undertaking which previously enjoyed an advantage? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Community law principle of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations require that it should be permissible only in wholly exceptional circumstances for a Member State which adopts rules for the implementation of that directive and, in doing so, has established a promotion scheme consisting of tax advantages spread over several years, to amend that scheme, during the time-limit laid down, to the disadvantage of an undertaking which previously enjoyed an advantage?

---

(1)  OJ L 123, p. 42.

1

---