alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004300EN.01003202.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/32

---

Appeal brought on 4 October 2004 by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) against the judgment delivered on 7 July 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-175/03 between Norbert Schmitt and the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

(Case C-426/04 P)

(2004/C 300/61)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 July 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-175/03 between Norbert Schmitt and the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 2004 by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR), represented by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Sébastien Orlandi, avocats.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside that the judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2004 in Case T-175/03 (Norbert Schmitt v European Agency for Reconstruction) in full. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside that the judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2004 in Case T-175/03 (Norbert Schmitt v European Agency for Reconstruction) in full.

Giving judgment itself,

| — | dismiss the action for annulment of the decision of the EAR of 25 February 2003 terminating the contract of the applicant at first instance as a member of the temporary staff; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action for annulment of the decision of the EAR of 25 February 2003 terminating the contract of the applicant at first instance as a member of the temporary staff;

| — | order the applicant at first instance and respondent on appeal to pay the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant at first instance and respondent on appeal to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas and main arguments:

The Court of First Instance disregarded the prohibition on ruling ultra petita in basing its decision on pleas and arguments that had neither been raised directly nor elaborated upon to the requisite legal standard by the applicant at first instance.

Furthermore, the Court of First Instance made an error of law in interpreting clause 4 of the temporary staff contract concluded with Mr Schmitt as limiting the Agency's right to terminate the contract to situations arising from a significant reduction in, or cessation of, the Agency's operations before the end of its mandate.

Lastly, the Court of First Instance also made an error of law in considering that the legitimate expectations of the applicant at first instance had been infringed when it is apparent from the judgment that no clear and unconditional assurance, complying and in accordance with the rules of the conditions of employment of other servants had been given to him in relation to his remaining in post until the end of the Agency's actual mandate.

---
Message Information 

Date 07/21/2011 03:25 PM 

From info <info@cincinnatiteaparty.org > 

To ray lahood©dot.gov" <ray.lahood©dotgov>; LisaP 

Ja ckso n/D C/USE PA/U S©E PA 

Subject Regarding Fuel Standards Proposals 

Message Body 

Letter sent on behalf of the almost 10,000 members of the Cincinnati Tea Party 

Mike Wilson 

President, Cincinnati Tea Party	Cincinnati Tea Parly Iettorpdf 

OEX Processing Information 

Processed Date: 

Processed By 

P0 Office	 Category:
The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary of the Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC. 20590 

The Honorable Lisa Jackson 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Dear Secretary LaHood and Administrator Jackson, 

The proposal to raise the corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standard is a cause of great 

concern to ordinary Americans. At a time of great financial difficulty, this policy will have a major 

impact on businesses and individuals across the country. 

The CAFE standard being considered will continue to hasten the demise of the once proud 

automotive industry by increasing manufacturing costs associated with extracting more energy 

from fuel, and with constructing the vehicles themselves from lighter materials. From what we 

understand, there is not even a car in production that even meets 56 mpg. 

The new-car market would shrink as a result; some have estimated that 5.5 million potential 

buyers would be priced out of the market, with manufacturing jobs disappearing with them by 

2025. 

There has been no mention of the inevitable increase in taxes to make up for the shortfall from 

the gas tax, or the increased tag fees from states who have traditionally used weight as a 

measurement for registration fees, The cost of CAFE will far outweigh the costs of buying more 

fuel, even at today's inflated prices. 

Now is not the time for Washington to force yet more regulation on a bewildered industry in 

desperate need of renewal. Nor is it the right of the federal government to tell us, the people, 

what type of car we should drive. We should always have the right to choose. We urge you to drop 

these proposals and give Americans the chance to sell the cars they want, and Americans to buy 

the cars they want. 

I look forward to hearing from you. 

Yours sincerely, 

Mike Wilson, 

President, Cincinnati Tea Party 

rmkej)cirK nnatiteaparty,p,[g 

www.cincinh1atiteaJjyOrg
Filed 6/30/98 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

1998 ND 124

Bryan C. Tibor,                             Plaintiff and Appellant

       v.                                                        

Kathleen E. Tibor, n/k/a

Kathleen E. Zich,                            Defendant and Appellee

Civil No. 970372 

Appeal from the District Court for Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Benny A. Graff, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Gregory I. Runge, Suite A, 418 E. Rosser Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501, for plaintiff and appellant.

Wheeler Wolf, P.O. Box 2056, Bismarck, ND 58502-2056, for defendant and appellee; argued by Arnold V. Fleck.  Melissa Hauer on brief.

Tibor v. Tibor

Civil No. 970372

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Bryan Tibor appeals from an order amending a divorce decree to increase the amount of monthly child support.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).  

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Herbert L. Meschke

Mary Muehlen Maring

William A. Neumann

Dale V. Sandstrom
# C_2004300EN.01005501.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/55

---

(2004/C 300/108)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
  Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 284, 20.11.2004

OJ C 284, 20.11.2004

Past publications

OJ C 273, 6.11.2004

OJ C 262, 23.10.2004

OJ C 251, 9.10.2004

OJ C 239, 25.9.2004

OJ C 228, 11.9.2004

OJ C 217, 28.8.2004

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department



## 657 **KA 09-01933**
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES FIDA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (CHRISTINE M. COOK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), entered September 2, 2009 pursuant to the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act. The order denied defendant’s application to be resentenced upon defendant’s 1989 conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his application for resentencing under the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act ([DLRA-1] L 2004, ch 738, § 23). We agree with defendant that County Court erred in determining that he was ineligible for resentencing because he had previously been released on parole and was incarcerated for a parole violation at the time of his application ( see People v Caban , 84 AD3d 828, 828). As the Court of Appeals has noted with respect to the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act ( see CPL 440.46), although “many parole violators have shown by their conduct that they do not deserve relief from their sentences[,] . . . courts can deny their resentencing applications . . . if ‘substantial justice dictates that the application should be denied’ ” ( People v Paulin , 17 NY3d 238, 244, quoting L 2004, ch 738, § 23; see Caban , 84 AD3d 828). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings on defendant’s application for resentencing pursuant to DLRA-1.

Entered: June 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 8, 2014

No. 04

- 13

- 00667

- CR

Raymond Sandoval GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 383282

Honorable Genie Wright , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the c ourt’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on January 8, 2014

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of January, 2014

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
# C_2005140EN.01000602.xml

| 9.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3609 — Cinven/France Telecom Cable — NC Numericable)

(2005/C 140/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 4 March 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3609. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3609. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2127 

To amend the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 

to require employee consent before labor organization dues of such employee are used for any purpose not directly related to the labor organization’s collective bargaining or contract administration functions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2017 

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

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure 

Act of 1959 to require employee consent before labor 

organization dues of such employee are used for any 

purpose not directly related to the labor organization’s 

collective bargaining or contract administration functions. 

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 ‘‘National Paycheck 

5 Protection Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2127 IH

1 SEC. 2. RIGHT NOT TO SUBSIDIZE UNION NONREPRESEN2 TATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 

3 Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis4 closure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. 411 et seq.) is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 106. RIGHT NOT TO SUBSIDIZE UNION NONREPRE7 SENTATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 

8 ‘‘No employee’s labor organization dues, fees, or as9 sessments or other contributions shall be used or contrib10 uted to any person, organization, or entity for any purpose 

11 not directly related to the labor organization’s collective 

12 bargaining or contract administration functions on behalf 

13 of the represented unit employee unless the employee 

14 whether a member of the labor organization or a non15 member required to make such payments as a condition 

16 of employment, authorizes such expenditure in writing, 

17 after a notice period of not less than 35 days. An initial 

18 authorization provided by an employee under the pre19 ceding sentence shall expire not later than 1 year after 

20 the date on which such authorization is signed by the em21 ployee. There shall be no automatic renewal of an author22 ization under this section.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02909]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]


Advisory Committee Renewals

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
renewal of certain FDA advisory committees by the Commissioner of Food 
and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it 
is in the public interest to renew the charters of the committees 
listed in the following table for an additional 2 years beyond charter 
expiration date. The new charters will be in effect until the dates of 
expiration listed in the following table. This notice is issued under 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.).

DATES: Authority for these committees will expire on the dates 
indicated in the following table unless the Commissioner formally 
determines that renewal is in the public interest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Name of committee                   Date of  expiration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cardio and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee.  August 27, 2016.
Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs          August 27, 2016.
 Advisory Committee.
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee........  September 1, 2016.
Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee...  October 7, 2016.
Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory  October 7, 2016.
 Committee.
Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies        October 28, 2016.
 Advisory Committee.
Technical Electronic Product Radiation      December 24, 2016.
 Safety Standards Committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Ortwerth, Director, Advisory 
Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-443-0572 or 
1-800-741-8138. For further information related to FDA advisory 
committees, please visit us at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: February 6, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-02909 Filed 2-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,578
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,353
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,349
<PP&E>                                       2,322,823
<DEPRECIATION>                                (84,754)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,331,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,897
<BONDS>                                        840,477
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           624
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,372,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,331,919
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               284,582
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               188,460
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    90,675
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.54
        

</TABLE>
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0493 Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NM

- 180

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed c ell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost T otal Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD h ave a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include speci fic requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES NO Explanation:
~ , , I ~'- ~ v" 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112434 

TOP SECRET 

1/IDIIIIIH. 

AJ R. P- /J - J - --e,,, HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN~ 

~NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 10 October 1969 

HANDLE VIA 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: Meeting with Dave Packard, October 8 

1. NASA Guidelines. 

I discussed with Dave Packard the question of rev1s1ng 

the guidelines which divide NASA responsibility from NRO 

responsibility. I told him that I thought we had a paper which 

would be satisfactory to him and to Lee DuBridge and had shown 

it to Dick Helms first because he was the one I thought might 

be sensitive. I told him that I thought the only change which 

Helms might object to is the one wherein we specifically say 

that we would not want to impose any restrictions on NASA with 

respect to astronomical operations. 

2. U-2 Flights Over Cuba. 

I mentioned that we had occasion recently to examine 

whether or not the U-2s were needed to get the necessary photographic coverage of Cuba and that DIA had conducted a study 

which in effect has caused them to reduce their stated requirements for coverage by a factor of two. At the same time, they 

had insisted that we maintain at least one overflight per month 

in Cuba on the basis that we want them to know that we are still 

there. I said to Dave that I did not think that such a decision 

was proper to be included in a USIB requirement let alone a 

DIA requirement and that this was essentially a political decision. 

Dave said we ought to take this to the 303 Committee. 

3. TAGBOARD. 

Dave referred to the recent 303 discussions about whether 

we would use TAG or some other means of overflying China. He 

said that the gist of the discussions was that TAGBOARD would 

not be used in China and he felt that if it would not be used 

there, then it was unlikely it would be used anywhere else. He 

BYEMAN TOP SECRET CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD D!RECTiVE 52D0.1 0 DOES NOT AP,.::,LY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112434 
HANDLE VIA 

_ Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112434 HANDLE VtA 

TOP SECRET BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

could envision some situation where we might want to overfly 

Russia using TAG. In any case, the tone of his questioning 

led me to propose that we do a little study of what would be 

involved if we decided to put the TAGBOARD in storage for a 

period of years until such time as we do have some real requirements for overflight where TAG would be suitable. He thinks 

it would be a good idea to conduct such a st~dy, taking into 

account the possible desirability of having another test flight 

before we stop and bringing out such factors as how long we 

could go without another flight, what the cost would be of 

maintaining the remaining drones in various states of readiness, 

etc. 

~L 

John L. McLucas 

CONTROL NO ______ _ 

BYEMAN TOP SECRET COPY ___ OF ___ COPIES 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUrDMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112434 

PAGE ___ OF ___ PAGES