alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004300EN.01002302.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/23

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 7 October 2004

in Case C-483/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC - The Community's railways - Development - Licensing of railway undertakings - Allocation of infrastructure capacity, levying of charges for the use of infrastructure and safety certification - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2004/C 300/48)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-483/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: M. Demetriou and K. Manji) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directives 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directives 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02320]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property 
at the South Texas Regional Airport at Hondo, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the 
release of land at the South Texas Regional Airport at Hondo under the 
provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment 
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Ed Agnew, Manager, Federal 
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas 
Airports Development Office, ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Jeff Litchfield, City Manager, at the 
following address: 1600 Avenue M, Hondo, Texas 78861.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Mekhail, Program Manager, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office, 
ASW-650, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137, Telephone: 
(817) 222-5663, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#02436c766a6d6c7b2c4f67696a636b6e426463632c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b0a253f2324253265062e20232a22270b2d2a2a652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>, fax: (817) 222-5989. 
The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this same 
location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release property at the South Texas Regional Airport at 
Hondo under the provisions of the AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City of Hondo requests the release of 25.855 acres of 
aeronautical airport property. The property is located south of Runway 
35L and just north of the railroad tracks. The property to be released 
will be sold and revenues shall be used for the operation and 
maintenance at the airport. Any person may inspect the request in 
person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, 
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the 
South Texas Regional Airport at Hondo, telephone number (830) 426-3380.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 29, 2015.
Lacey Spriggs,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-02320 Filed 2-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

N O

. 09

- 20

- 00219

- CV

__________________

DAVID P. ELLENT, PLLC
, Appellant

VS.

TODD YOUNGBLOOD, WILLIAM FRIDLEY, PATRICK OGIDAN, STEPHAN FILLMAN, MARIA CHARRON, AND SHARON OGIDAN
, A ppellee s

__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 20

- 08

- 09746

- CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant David P. Ellent, PLLC filed a motion to dismiss this accelerated

appeal. This motion is voluntarily made by the appellant prior to any decision of this

Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party filed notice of appeal. We grant

the motion and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURI AM2 Submitted on November 4, 2020 Opinion Delivered November 5, 2020

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
#### Brodstein, Respondent, vs. Brodstein, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county dated February 8, 1927: Otto H. Breiden-bach, Judge.

Divorce. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

For the appellant: *H. H. Heilbron*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Churchill, Bennett & Churchill,*attorneys, and *Richard R. Davis,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*—

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005048EN.01000101.xml

| 24.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 February 2005

(2005/C 48/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3203 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,45 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4416 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69170 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,098 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5389 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 80,48 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2605 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5830 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,935 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 242,14 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4316 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9523 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 36 596 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,73 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,913 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7272 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6695 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6271 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2982 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8215 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1473 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 325,71 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,684 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3203

JPY

Japanese yen

138,45

DKK

Danish krone

7,4416

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69170

SEK

Swedish krona

9,098

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5389

ISK

Iceland króna

80,48

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2605

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5830

CZK

Czech koruna

29,935

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

242,14

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4316

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9523

ROL

Romanian leu

36 596

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,73

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,913

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7272

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6695

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6271

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2982

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8215

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1473

KRW

South Korean won

1 325,71

ZAR

South African rand

7,684

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
{In Archive} Re: McElmo Title V and PSD Permit 

Shaheerah Kelly to: justin.j.harrison 07/27/2005 03:43 PM

Cc: Gerardo Rios, Ann Lyons, christopher.w.armstrong, neil.j.ryan

From: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US

To: justin.j.harrison@exxonmobil.com, 

Cc: Gerardo Rios/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Ann Lyons/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, 

christopher.w.armstrong@exxonmobil.com, neil.j.ryan@exxonmobil.com

Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

Thanks for the follow-up. 

I'll be in contact with you very soon.

Shaheerah Kelly

Air Division, Permits Office

U S EPA Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

justin.j.harrison@exxonmobil.com

justin.j.harrison@exxonmobil.

com

07/27/2005 01:06 PM

To Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

cc neil.j.ryan@exxonmobil.com, 

christopher.w.armstrong@exxonmobil.com

Subject McElmo Title V and PSD Permit

Shaheerah,

As a follow-up to our telephone conversations on April 26, June 9, and

today, I just wanted to confirm some of the information we discussed:

 Per our Consent Decree, which went into effect on June 8, 2005, a Title

 V application and a PSD permit application must be submitted to your

 office within 180 days after the Effective Date (before 12/5/05).

 Per our Part 71 application dated March 22, 2000 and our follow-up

 letter (dated May 27, 2004) in response to your March 31, 2004 request,

 we feel that the Title V application has already been made.

 You will determine if there is any other information you need to

 complete the Title V Draft Permit and let us know in the next two weeks

 either in writing and/or through a phone call with a draft request.

 With respect to the PSD application, we have completed the modeling, are

 currently working on the BACT analysis, and are awaiting further

 instructions from your office in regards to the application itself in

 order to complete this requirement by 12/5/05.

 You will begin to involve the Navajo EPA in any conversations we have

 regarding the above items via a conference call.

We appreciate the open dialogue we have established and wish to continue

this in order to complete our requirements in a timely manner. If you have
any questions or if there is anything we can do to help in expediting these

matters to closure, please let us know.

Thank you for your input and diligence.

Justin J. Harrison

ExxonMobil U.S. Production

Regulatory Air Compliance

CORP-MI-3038

P.O. Box 4358

Houston, TX 77210-4358

Office: 281-654-1127

Fax: 281-654-1147

 "Nobody Gets Hurt"
# C_2005031EN.01001802.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/18

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 1 December 2004

in Case T-27/02: Kronofrance SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(State aid - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects)

(2005/C 31/36)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-27/02: Kronofrance SA, established in Sully-sur-Loire (France), represented by R. Nierer, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and J. Flett, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH, established in Meppen (Germany), represented by H.-J. Niemeyer and K. Ziegler, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg – application for annulment of Commission Decision SG (2001) D of 25 July 2001 not to object to the aid granted by the German authorities to Glunz AG – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili, M. Vilaras, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka and V. Vadapalas, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 December 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision SG (2001) D of 25 July 2001 not to object to the aid granted by the German authorities to Glunz AG; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision SG (2001) D of 25 July 2001 not to object to the aid granted by the German authorities to Glunz AG;

| 2. | Orders the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the applicant;

| 3. | Orders Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH to bear the costs which they incurred in connection with their intervention. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH to bear the costs which they incurred in connection with their intervention.

---

(1)  OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.

1

---
September 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Waste Treatment (Code 629) 

Use of mechanical, chemical, or biological technologies to

change the characteristics of manure and agricultural

waste. 

Practice Information 

The treatment of manure or agricultural waste is used to

achieve one or more of the following: 

• Improve water quality in surface and groundwater by

better management of excess nutrients from manure or agricultural waste. 

• Improve air quality by reducing particulate air emissions and objectionable odors from manure or

agricultural waste. 

• Facilitating desirable handling and storage properties of manure or agricultural waste. 

 

This practice applies to all land uses where manure and/or agricultural waste is being generated and

where soils, geology, and topography are suitable for construction of the waste treatment system.

This practice is used where surface and groundwater need to be protected as potential sources of

drinking water and where degradation of water quality will impact the intended use of surface and

ground waters. The practice is also used where improvements are needed to air quality to reduce air

emissions and odors. 

This practice has a minimum expected life of 10 years. Operation and maintenance of the facility will

depend upon the type of system that is selected. 

Common Associated Practices 

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Waste Treatment (Code 629) can be applied with

CPSs such as Waste Storage Facility (Code 313) and Waste Transfer (Code 634). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
# C_2004314EN.01002001.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/20

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 22 September 2004

in Case T-44/03: Giorgio Lebedef and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials - Remuneration - Travelling expenses - Amendment of the method of calculation - Second action relating to different years - Res judicata - Absence of material capable of calling in question the judgment delivered - Application manifestly unfounded)

(2004/C 314/50)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-44/03: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), and the 49 other officials named in an annex to the order, represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and V. Joris, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for annulment of the Commission's decision amending, for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995, the method used in calculating the annual expenses of travelling to Greece as regards the itinerary via Brindisi and also annulment of the applicants' reimbursement statements implementing that decision, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 September 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.08


                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                             COMSHARE, INCORPORATED
                     1998 GLOBAL EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN


         Pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of Comshare,
Incorporated on February 16, 2001, the 1998 Global Employee Stock Option Plan
(the "Plan") is hereby amended as set forth below.

         Effective February 16, 2001, the first two sentences in Section 8
"Termination of Employment" shall be amended and restated in their entirety to
read as follows:

                  Upon the expiration of a period of ninety (90) days after the
                  termination of employment of an optionee for any reason other
                  than death or disability as defined in Section 22(e) of the
                  Code, all rights to purchase shares pursuant to an exercisable
                  option shall expire and terminate; provided, however, that the
                  Committee, in its sole discretion, may permit an option to
                  continue to vest and/or expire later than ninety (90) days
                  following an optionee's termination of employment but not
                  later than the original expiration date of the option. The
                  Committee also may determine that an option granted under the
                  Plan shall terminate at a time prior to ninety (90) days
                  following termination of employment.


         THIS SECOND AMENDMENT to the Comshare, Incorporated 1998 Global
Employee Stock Option Plan is hereby executed as of February 16, 2001.



                                     COMSHARE, INCORPORATED




                                  By: /s/ Brian Jarzynski
                                     --------------------
                                      Brian Jarzynski
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Krueger, Appellant, vs. Krueger, Respondent.

*December 6, 1928*

January 8, *1929.*

*589For the appellant there was a brief by *E. B. Martineau,*attorney, and *Pierre A. Martineau,*of counsel, both of Mari-nette, and oral argument by *Pierre A. Martineau.*

*L. M. Evert*of Marinette, for the respondent.

Eschweiler, J.

The defendant paid the automobile expenses on the trip. The plaintiff was, by her own pleadings and under the facts, defendant’s guest. As such guest she took the automobile and the defendant as driver as they were. Plaintiff knew defendant’s prior experience as a driver as well as all the facts surrounding the long drive from noon of the preceding day; the loss of sleep; the discomforts of the night preceding the final stage of the journey. She was bound to know as a matter of common knowl*590edge that a result such as did follow, viz. of the defendant dozing at the wheel, was reasonably to be expected as an aftermath of the experience which they had all undergone since the preceding noon, although she testified to the contrary. Under such a situation it must be held as a matter of law that the plaintiff assumed the risk incident to the entire situation, there being here no showing upon which it could be said that defendant failed to exercise ordinary care not to increase the danger or to create a new danger. The plaintiff therefore failed to prove a cause of action for actionable negligence. Although no motion for a nonsuit or for a directed verdict appears from the record to have been made by defendant, he did oppose plaintiff’s motion for judgment and appears to have moved for a change in the answer by the jury as to contributory negligence. The question as to contributory negligence necessarily involved that form thereof which is referred to as the assumption of risk.

We consider this case controlled, as to holding as a matter of law that there was a failure to show any actionable negligence by defendant, by *Cleary v. Eckart,*191 Wis. 114, 116, 118, 210 N. W. 267, 51 A. L. R. 576, note at p. 581, and *Olson v. Hermansen,*196 Wis. 614, 220 N. W. 203. This rule is recognized elsewhere. *Hornbeck v. Richards,*80 Mont. 27, 257 Pac. *1025; Paiewonsky v. Joffe,*101 N. J. L. 521, 129 Atl. 142, 40 A. L. R. 1335, note at p. 1338.

Where the rule is that gross negligence must be shown to entitle a guest to recover, as declared in *Manning v. Simpson*(Mass.) 159 N. E. 440, a sleeping guest was not permitted to recover against a sleepy driver in *Oppenheim v. Barkin*(Mass.) 159 N. E. 628, even though defendant might be held grossly negligent, while just the opposite was held in *Bushnell v. Bushnell,*103 Conn. 583, 131 Atl. 432.

It is unnecessary to consider other questions presented on this appeal.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
#### Marling Lumber Company and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

For the appellants : *Rouiller, Dougherty, Arnold & Kivett*of Milwaukee.

For- the respondent Industrial Commission: *Orland S. Loomis,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

For the respondent Mrs. Lena Prien: *Sachtjen & Braathen*of Madison.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.