alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005045EN.01000601.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 9 December 2004

in Case C-79/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Hunting)

(2005/C 45/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-79/03: Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 21 February 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) and Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

Kingdom of Spain

| 1. | Declares that, by allowing hunting using limed twigs in the Community of Valencia by means of the method known as ‘parany’, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8(1) and 9(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by allowing hunting using limed twigs in the Community of Valencia by means of the method known as ‘parany’, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8(1) and 9(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

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

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 10(HH)

                               First Amendment to
                        State Auto Financial Corporation
                        2000 Directors Stock Option Plan





<PAGE>   2



                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                        STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                        2000 DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN


The State Auto Financial Corporation 2000 Directors Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan") is hereby amended in the following particulars:

1.   Section 3. STOCK OPTIONS. Subsection (a) Grant and Eligibility is hereby
     deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:

     (a)  GRANT AND ELIGIBILITY. All directors of the Company or its Parent who
          are not full-time employees of the Company or its Parent or Subsidiary
          corporations and who are in compliance with the Company's stock
          ownership guidelines as applicable to such directors are eligible to
          be granted Awards under the Plan. Promptly following each annual
          meeting of the shareholders of the Company on or after the effective
          date of the Plan, each person who is then a director of the Company or
          its Parent and not a full-time employee of the Company or its Parent
          or Subsidiary corporations shall be granted an Option to purchase
          1,500 shares of Stock.

2.   The effective date of this First Amendment is March 2, 2001 and this First
     Amendment shall be deemed to be a part of the Plan as of such date. In the
     event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of the Plan and this
     First Amendment, the provisions of this First Amendment shall control.
     Except as modified by this First Amendment the Plan shall continue in full
     force and effect without change.






The First Amendment was approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of State
Auto Financial Corporation on March 2, 2001.
# NROL-162

Launches
current page

The National Reconnaissance Office is scheduled to launch the NROL-162 & 199 missions aboard a pair of Rocket Lab Electron rockets from Mahia Peninsula, New Zealand. These missions demonstrate NRO’s capability to launch multiple rockets from overseas locations back-to-back, and both carry national security payloads designed, built, and operated by NRO. NROL-162 & 199 are NRO’s third and fourth launch of 2022, and are part of more than a half-dozen planned launches for the year.

## About the Mission Emblem

In the NROL-162 patch, the frilled neck lizard is a reptile primarily located in northern Australia and much like the lizard, it represents the small, agile nature of the payload to be launched. NROL-162 is significant for NRO as the Australian Department of Defence is a project partner, and the frilled neck lizard chosen for the logo recognizes Australia’s involvement. For the Australian Department of Defence, this is an opportunity to partner with an experienced space acquisition organization as it prepares to acquire its own national security satellite capability towards the end of the decade. Hence the Latin term, Sapiens Qui Prospicit; ”Wise is the person who looks ahead.”

## Launch Vehicle

### Electron

 Electron is a two-stage rocket designed and manufactured by Rocket Lab for dedicated access to space of small satellites. This will be the 27th and 28th launch of the Electron rocket.

### Rutherford Engine(s)

Proven performance. The world’s first 3D-printed, electric-pump-fed rocket engine.

### First Stage

          - 9 Sea-level Rutherford Engines
          - Lift-off Thrust: 190 kN (43,000 lbf)
          - Peak Thrust: 224 kN (56,000 lbf)
          - ISP: 311 seconds

### Interstage

Pneumatic Pusher

### Second Stage

          - Single Vacuum Rutherford Engine
          - Total Thrust: 25.8 kN (5,800 lbf)
          - ISP: 343 seconds

### Kick Stage

Electron’s unique Kick Stage is designed to deliver small satellites to precise and unique orbits, whether flying as dedicated or rideshare.
          - Deployment of payloads at multiple planes/inclinations
          - Higher altitude deployment
          - Hosted payload support
          - Multiple trajectory changes
          - Sustained low altitude orbits
          - Deorbiting payloads to eliminate space debris

## Site Info

Rocket Lab offers the world’s only private orbital launch range in Mahia, New Zealand. An FAA-licensed spaceport, Launch Complex 1 can provide up to 120 launch opportunities every year. From the site it is possible to reach orbital inclinations from sun-synchronous through to 30 degrees, enabling a wide spectrum of inclinations to service the majority of the satellite industry’s missions to low Earth orbit.

Download the NROL-162 Press Kit

## Ready to launch your career?

For more than 60 years, the NRO has leveraged innovation and strategic partnerships to develop, acquire, launch, and operate America's spy satellites.
More on the Mission
Wyoming Sulfate Contribution to Sula Peak Worst

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 WY 0.007225 5.42E-05 0.0003583 0.0007917 0.0008375 0.0092667 Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Worst) to Sulfat e at Sula Peak = 0.009 divided by 0.6, or 2% Best

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 WY 0.0003739 0 1.30E-05 0 8.70E-05 0.0004739 Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Best) to Sulfate at Sula Peak = 0.0005 divided by 0.3, or < 1%
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Diversion, Grassed Waterway, Land Clearing, Land Reclamation, Abandoned Mined Land, Land Reclamation, Currently Mined Land, Land Reclamation, Landslide Treatment, Lined Waterway or Outlet, Obstruction Removal, Subsurface Drain, Surface Drainage, Field Ditch, Surface Drainage, Main or Lateral, Terrace.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
t:ltY ()f __.. 

1\ekhlkan 

January 23, 2013 

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova, Gustavas, 

Petersburg, Wrangeil, and Yakutat, Alaska, Docket OST-1998-4899 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

I am writing to express my strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines to 

continue to provide essential air service to the above referenced communities. Ketchikan 

and the entire Southeast Alaska panhandle rely on Alaska Airlines jet service for 

passenger access to these communities as well as for large volumes of freight and mail 

cargo, at a capacity that any other carrier simply could not provide. 

Alaska's current service connects Southeast Alaska passengers to one or more 

major communities of interest, with single plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan 

or Seattle. From these hubs, our region can access the airline's extensive route system 

and benefit from its marketing relationships with other carriers. 

Alaska Airlines aircraft are equipped with Required Navigation Performance 

technology, which enables the airline to access the airport during frequent periods of 

inclement weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling 

people and products to dependably reach the community. 

Therefore, I respectfully urge the Department to select Alaska Airlines to continue 

to provide essential air service to Southeast Alaska, as the airline as successfully doen for 

the last 35 years. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

cc: Tim Thompson - Manager, Public Affairs for Alaska Airlines 

334 Front Street I Ketchikan, AK 99901 I PH: 907-225-3111 I FX: 907-225-5075
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 5128

_____________________________
J EANETTE T ESORIERO , Appellant,

v.

S HADY R EST C ARE P AVILION , I NC

. and S UMMIT /C LAIMS C ENTER , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims

. Frank Clark , Judge

.
Date of Accident: October 16, 2014.

June 27, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W OLF , L EWIS , and R AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.2 _____________________________ Mark L. Zientz of Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., Miami
, for Appellant.

Michael E. McCabe of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., Fort Myers
, for Appellee s

.
Wyoming Chapter NECA/Local Union IBEW #415

Southern Inside Agreement (Albany, Goshen, Laramie, and Platte Counties)

Wage/Fringe SummaryJanuary 1, 2013 to March 1, 2014EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION

S PAYROLL D

WAGE NEBF JAT

C HEALTH Pension

Annuit

y LMCC ADMIN TOTA

L DUES LMC

RAT

E 3% 2.00% $5.50 $3.06 $2.50 $0.03 0.80% PKG. 5% $0.0

Wireman General Foreman $ 0.93 31.16 $ 0.62 $ 5.50 $ 3.06 $ 2.50 $ 0.03 $ 0.25 $ 44.06 $ $ 0.

1.56 $ 

5% Wireman Foreman < 4 JW $ 0.82 27.27 $ 0.55 $ 5.50 $ 3.06 $ 2.50 $ 0.03 $ 0.21 $ 39.93 $ $ 0.

1.36 $ 

10% Wireman Foreman >4 JW $ 0.86 28.57 $ 0.57 $ 5.50 $ 3.06 $ 2.50 $ 0.03 $ 0.23 $ 41.32 $ $ 0.

1.43 $ 

Journeyman Wireman $ 0.78 25.97 $ 0.52 $ 5.50 $ 3.06 $ 2.50 $ 0.03 $ 0.21 $ 38.57 $ $ 0.

1.30 $ 

1st Period Apprentices 55% $ 0.43 14.28 $ 0.29 $ 5.50 $ - $ - $ 0.03 $ 0.11 $ 20.64 $ $ 0.

- $ 

2nd Period Apprentices 60% $ 0.47 15.58 $ 0.31 $ 5.50 $ 2.50 $ 0.03 $ 0.12 $ 24.52 $ $ 0.

- $ 

3rd Period Apprentices 65% $ 0.51 16.88 $ 0.34 $ 5.50 $ 3.06 $ 2.50 $ 0.03 $ 0.14 $ 28.95 $ $ 0.

0.32 $ 

4th Period Apprentices 70% $ 0.55 18.18 $ 0.36 $ 5.50 $ 3.06 $ 2.50 $ 0.03 $ 0.15 $ 30.32 $ $ 0.

0.35 $ 

5th Period Apprentices 75% $ 0.58 19.48 $ 0.39 $ 5.50 $ 3.06 $ 2.50 $ 0.03 $ 0.16 $ 31.70 $ $ 0.

0.74 $ 

6th Period Apprentices 85% $ 0.66 22.07 $ 0.44 $ 5.50 $ 3.06 $ 2.50 $ 0.03 $ 0.18 $ 34.44 $ $ 0.

1.10 $ 

Vacation: 5% Volunteer deduction

COPE: $.05 Volunteer deductionSubsistance: 30 Miles & Over $30.00 5/8 Overtime Schedule> 8 hours Mon. - FridaySaturday: 1 1/2 X up to 12 hours After 12 hours 2XSunday & Holidays: 2 X 

Apprentice working dues rate vary depending upon the period they are in.

1st & 2nd Period 0% 5th Period 4%3rd & 4th Period 2% 6th Period 5%Updated 01/24/2012
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

77) ll-K- (B) -65 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:50 AM Sheet 77 of 325 
P.2 

Pl 

ir A ~ O 

II-K-(B)-65 

RESULTS FOR IFCAM RUNS REQUESTED BY D. CARTER, DOE:EV. 

Letter from T. Hogan, EEA to R. Short, EPA:SASD. 

April 27, 1981, 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-65
# C_2004314EN.01002302.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/23

---

Action brought on 11 October 2004 by Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-405/04)

(2004/C 314/56)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 October 2004 by Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg (Germany), represented by M. Wolter, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 August 2004 in Case R 912/2002-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 August 2004 in Case R 912/2002-2;

| — | declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) do not prevent publication of the mark applied for, ‘Caipi’, for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages (not including beer)); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) do not prevent publication of the mark applied for, ‘Caipi’, for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages (not including beer));

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| The trade mark applied for: | Word mark ‘Caipi’ for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages (not including beer)), application No 2 655 967 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Refusal to register the mark applied for |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal |
| Grounds of claim: | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.  (1) Wrongful failure to take account of earlier national registrations. |

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

The applicant

The trade mark applied for:

Word mark ‘Caipi’ for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages (not including beer)), application No 2 655 967

Decision of the examiner:

Refusal to register the mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Grounds of claim:

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.  (1) Wrongful failure to take account of earlier national registrations.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

---
# C_2005031EN.01001101.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg by decision of that court of 14 October 2004 in the case of Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH (formerly Riess Laser Bandstahlschnitte GmbH) against Finanzamt Emmendingen

(Case C-492/04)

(2005/C 31/21)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Baden-Württemberg Finance Court) (Germany) of 14 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH (formerly Riess Laser Bandstahlschnitte GmbH) against Finanzamt Emmendingen on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Article 57(1) EC to be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions of the movement of capital to or from third countries which ‘exist’ on 31 December 1993 are those for which the legislative process has already been completed by the national legislature on that date, or those which under the national legislation are already applicable on that date to existing factual situations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 57(1) EC to be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions of the movement of capital to or from third countries which ‘exist’ on 31 December 1993 are those for which the legislative process has already been completed by the national legislature on that date, or those which under the national legislation are already applicable on that date to existing factual situations?

| 2. | Is Article 56(1) EC in conjunction with Article 58 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the – partial – taxation as a distribution of profits of payments of interest by a capital company resident in a Member State to a loan provider in a third country who is at the same time a shareholder in the capital company is thereby prohibited because this is arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction of the free movement of capital between a Member State and a third country? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 56(1) EC in conjunction with Article 58 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the – partial – taxation as a distribution of profits of payments of interest by a capital company resident in a Member State to a loan provider in a third country who is at the same time a shareholder in the capital company is thereby prohibited because this is arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction of the free movement of capital between a Member State and a third country?

---
H. R. 2210 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen 

An Act 

To designate the community living center of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

in Butler Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Sergeant Joseph George 

Kusick VA Community Living Center’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) Sergeant Joseph George Kusick of Bruin, Pennsylvania, 

was assigned to the command and control detachment of the 

5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) of the Army during the 

Vietnam War. 

(2) On November 8, 1967, Kusick distinguished himself 

by exceptionally valorous actions while serving as a radio operator of a special forces reconnaissance team on a combat mission 

deep in hostile territory. 

(3) During an enemy ambush, Kusick, though seriously 

wounded, refused aid and radioed the forward air controller 

to advise him of the critical situation. 

(4) While the team leader led a withdrawal to a landing 

zone, Kusick maintained contact with the controller and 

requested emergency extraction. 

(5) Realizing the importance of having a radio operator 

on the ground to direct landings, Kusick refused evacuation 

by the first helicopter. 

(6) After the second helicopter was shot down, and in 

the midst of enemy fire, Kusick continued to maintain radio 

contact and called for a hoist extraction of the men still 

remaining on the ground. 

(7) The last helicopter, which Kusick boarded, was shot 

down by intense Viet Cong fire and crashed in flames, resulting 

in Kusick’s death. 

(8) On December 22, 1967, Kusick was posthumously 

awarded the Silver Star Medal for gallantry in action. 

(9) The citation to accompany the award of the Silver 

Star Medal stated that ‘‘Kusick’s gallantry in action, at the 

cost of his life, was in keeping with the highest traditions 

of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, 

his unit, and the United States Army’’. 

SEC. 2. SERGEANT JOSEPH GEORGE KUSICK VA COMMUNITY LIVING 

CENTER. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The community living center of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Butler Township, Butler County, 
H. R. 2210—2 

Pennsylvania, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant Joseph George Kusick 

VA Community Living Center’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the community living center referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 

to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Joseph George Kusick VA 

Community Living Center’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.