alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004262EN.01004202.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/42

---

Action brought on 19 July 2004 by Francesco Ianniello against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-308/04)

(2004/C 262/81)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 July 2004 by Francesco Ianniello, resident in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the appeal assessor's decision of 8 September 2003 approving the applicant's 2001-2002 career development report; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appeal assessor's decision of 8 September 2003 approving the applicant's 2001-2002 career development report;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of his appeal, the applicant invokes a breach of Article 8 of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims that the provision is unlawful because it provides for the appointment of members of the Joint Evaluation Committee whose grade is the same as, or lower than, that of the applicant and who thus do not possess all the guarantees of independence or the requisite powers. The applicant adds that, although he acts on the authority of a staff union, the director of resources or his alternate did not withdraw and took part in the consideration of his appeal.

The applicant also claims that there was a breach of the duty of confidentiality on the part of the members of the Joint Evaluation Committee, a breach of the principle that the Joint Committee should be impartial and objective, a breach of the rights of defence and of the right to an inter partes hearing, a breach of the principle of sound administration and a manifest error of assessment and inconsistency between the comments and the marks awarded.

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2178 

To provide for the compensation of Federal contractor employees that may 

be placed on unpaid leave as a result of the Federal Government shutdown, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2017 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To provide for the compensation of Federal contractor employees that may be placed on unpaid leave as a result 

of the Federal Government shutdown, and for other purposes. 

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 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Low-Wage Federal 

5 Contractor Employee Back Pay Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2178 IH

1 SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR FURLOUGHED FEDERAL CON2 TRACTOR EMPLOYEES. 

3 Title VII of Division E of the Consolidated Appro4 priations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114–113) is amended by 

5 adding at the end the following new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 752. If a Federal contractor that provides re7 tail, food, custodial, or security services to the Federal 

8 Government places the employees of such contractor on 

9 unpaid leave as a result of any lapse in appropriations 

10 which begins in fiscal year 2017, the Government shall 

11 provide compensation to such employees at their standard 

12 rate of compensation for the period of such lapse.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
# lnventoryExpertServic$~{}~·· A division of the American Chemical Society Phone: 80D-631-1884, 614-447·387(), Fax: 614-447-3747 E-mail: answers@cas.org Web: www.cas.org/productslother-cas-productstcllent-servicesl 

# [ INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT IES Order Number: 339443 Registry Number: Not Registered 

### CA Index Name:

CAS 

# l rtf

Please printthe above CA Index Name on the appropriate page ofyour PMN. Ifthis box is checked, CAS has made correction(s) marked in red toyour IES order. Please make the same corrections toyour PMN before submitting ittothe EPA. 

### 2540 Olentangy River Road 

### P.O. Box 3343 Columbus, OH 

### 43210-0334 USA
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      28,162,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,100,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,430,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                129,390,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           164,082,000
<PP&E>                                       3,543,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,474,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             166,151,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      132,952,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,193,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               166,151,000
<SALES>                                     40,368,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,368,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            27,792,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,756,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,820,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,513,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,307,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.94
        

</TABLE>
Ex-99.4
Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distribution to
Certificateholders.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 ENDING
    CLASS              INTEREST                   PRINCIPAL                      BALANCE
    -----              --------                   ---------                      -------
<S>                   <C>                         <C>                           <C>
      A               $38,922,258.11              $457,016,700.07               $673,753,572.18
     B-1                 $222,465.92                        $0.00                 $5,063,089.61
     B-2                  $88,982.84                        $0.00                 $2,025,154.70
     B-3                 $133,483.63                        $0.00                 $3,037,945.81
     M-1                 $667,397.78                        $0.00                $15,189,268.82
     M-3                 $311,453.19                        $0.00                 $7,088,345.73
      R                        $0.00                        $0.00                         $0.00
                      $40,924,452.00              $457,016,700.07
</TABLE>
# Mississippi State Office

100 W Capitol St Ste 1321JacksonMS39269-1602

601-863-3947

100 W Capitol Street, Suite 1321JacksonMS39269-1602

Mississippi

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Contact 
-  State Office Contacts 
-  Mississippi 
-  Mississippi State Office 

Welcome to the NRCS Mississippi State Office Directory. With the mission of *“Helping people help the land,”* the Natural Resources Conservation Service provides products and services that enable people to be good stewards of the Nation’s soil, water, and related natural resources on private lands.

## **Welcome to NRCS in Mississippi!**

### ***Kurt Readus, State Conservationist***

Mississippi NRCS, led by our State Conservationist and our State Leadership Team. XXXX

----

##   MISSISSIPPI NRCS STATE OFFICE EMPLOYEE DIRECTORY

##   Additional Documents

MS NRCS Directory(2.04 MB)

MS STC Kurt Readus(151.97 KB)

Mississippi NRCS Service Centers by County only (April)(1.15 MB)

2023 MS NRCS Offices(1.23 MB)
----

Action brought on 22 April 2004 by Daniel Bauwens against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-154/04)

(2004/C 168/21)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 2004 by Daniel Bauwens, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Nöel Louis and Etienne Marchal lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant made an application to refer the matter to the Joint Evaluation Committee contesting his career development report, as countersigned by the countersigning officer. That request was held to be out of time, since it was brought after the deadline of five working days provided for by Article 7 of the General Provisions for Implementing Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant challenges the decision dismissing his application and drawing up the final report, arguing that the deadline of five days should have been suspended, in accordance with the footnote to Article 7 of the General Provisions, on the ground that he was on leave for a period of two weeks starting from the day after the formal confirmation of the appraisal by the countersigning officer. In the same context, the applicant also relies on a manifest error of assessment and the infringement of the principles of sound management, sound administration and equal treatment.

----
#### In MOORE v. HINNANT, from Johnston:

*Practice.*

This cause is remanded at appellant's costs, for the reason that an appeal was attempted to be taken before the rendition of judgment.

*506Smith, C. J.

This is a controversy submitted without action (to the superior court of Johnston county) upon an agreed statement of facts under C. C. P., § 315.

The defendant, sheriff of Johnston county, under several writs of attachment sued out against one H. L. Watson by creditors, had levied upon certain goods of the debtor, which the plaintiff held under a prior assignment to himself in trust to secure all the creditors.

The object of the suit is to have a decision of the court upon the sufficiency in form, and legal efficacy of .the deed, in vesting the title in the plaintiff against the attaching creditors.

It is agreed that if the validity of the conveyance be sustained, judgment shall be rendered requiring restitution of the goods; if not, judgment shall be entered against the plaintiff for costs.

His Honor filed an opinion declaring that the deed of assignment is not fraudulent and void, and' without any judgment rendered, so far as the record discloses, the defendant appeals.

When a case is heard under this summary method authorized by the Code, the statement should embrace all the facts material to a final and complete determination, with nothing further to be done, except to carry the judgment into effect. The present statement seems to be defective in not specifying any goods attached, and to be restored, in case of a decision favorable to the plaintiff.

But an insuperable difficulty is interposed to our entertaining the appeal, in the fact, that it is attempted to be taken in the midst of a trial and before the rendition of judgment. Appeals are not authorized under such circumstances, but only from a “judgment, order or determination of the judge,” (C. C. P., § 299) and then only when a trial entered upon is concluded. For this imperfection in the *507record the cause must be remanded at the costs of the appellant.

Since the opinion was filed the parties propose by consent to file the record of the judgment as an amendment, and if this shall be done, the order remanding will be withdrawn, and the cause will remain on the docket for a future hearing in the amended form.

Per Curiam. Order accordingly.
# C_2004228EN.01004003.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/40

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 2 July 2004

in Case T-9/03, Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna and CIA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(State aid - Action for annulment and compensation - Decision finding an aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Actions brought by representatives of potential beneficiaries of that scheme - Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 228/92)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-9/03, COLDIRETTI — Federazione Regionale Coltivatori Diretti della Sardegna, established in Cagliari (Italy) — Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori della Sardegna, established in Cagliari (Italy), represented by G. Dore and F. Ciulli, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: V. di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg), application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision No 2002/785/EC of 7 May 2002 on the aid Italy is planning to grant under Article 21 of Region of Sardinia Law No 21/2000 to agricultural holdings using fuel other than methane, and, in the alternative, application for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as the result of that decision, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij, N.J. Forwood, I. Pelikánová and S.S. Papasavvas, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 2 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.

1

---
mmer Power Station Dynegy Zimmer, LLC Stack: 1242'MSL 

### I SOO'AGL Class G Ai rspace , SFC-1200'AGL ithin CVG Mode C 30NM

rt Power Station Dynegy Stuart , LLC k: 1332'MSL 

### I 800'AGL lass G Airspace to 1200'AGL Radio : CTAF 123

.0 122.8 Fleming Mason (FGX)

lass E , 700'AGL and above lass G Airspace to 1200'AGL Radio : CTAF 122

.8 123.0

alamon (AMT) Class E , 700'AGL and above
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Corautus Genetics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard E. Otto, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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. 

 

Date: August 16, 2004 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Corautus Genetics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert T. Atwood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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. 

 

Date: August 16, 2004 

 

/s/ ROBERT T. ATWOOD

Name: Robert T. Atwood
Title: Executive Vice President and Chief
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1988 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, California, as the ‘‘Merle Haggard 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2017 

Mr. MCCARTHY 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 1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, California, 

as the ‘‘Merle Haggard Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MERLE HAGGARD POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, 

6 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Merle 

7 Haggard Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1988 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Merle Haggard Post 

3 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2004239EN.01001001.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/10

---

Removal from the register of Case C-401/02 (1)

1

(2004/C 239/18)

By order of 2 June 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-401/02: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 25.1.2003.

1

---
# C_2004284EN.01000602.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 30 September 2004

in Case C-496/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

1

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/59/EC - Failure to transpose)

(2004/C 284/12)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-496/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C.-F. Durand and F. Simonetti) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Mercier) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 24 November 2003 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and E. Juhász (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 September 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001 adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001 adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

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

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.

1

---
#### Umberger Brothers and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

For the appellants : *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Kenneth P. Grubb*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *James E. Finnegan,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# C_2004262EN.01000501.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 7 September 2004

in Case C-346/02: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

1

(Insurance - Third non-life insurance directive - Bonus-malus system)

(2004/C 262/08)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-346/02, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 30 September 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Tufvesson and J.-F. Pasquier) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: P. Gramegna, assisted by A. Schmitt) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges, C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 September 2004, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

1

---