alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005031EN.01001302.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 October 2004 in the case of Hans Werhof against Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-499/04)

(2005/C 31/27)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Landesarbeitsgericht (Higher Labour Court) Düsseldorf (Germany) of 8 October 2004 received at the Court Registry on 2 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hans Werhof against Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co. KG on the following questions:

| 1. | Is it compatible with Article 3(1) of Council Directive 98/50/EC (1) of 29 June 1998 amending Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses if a transferee of a business – who is not subject to a collective agreement – is bound by an agreement between the transferor of the business – who is subject to a collective agreement – and the employee, under which the collective wage agreements in force binding the transferor of the business are to apply, in such a way that the collective wage agreement in force at the time of the transfer of the business applies but collective wage agreements entering into force subsequently do not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with Article 3(1) of Council Directive 98/50/EC (1) of 29 June 1998 amending Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses if a transferee of a business – who is not subject to a collective agreement – is bound by an agreement between the transferor of the business – who is subject to a collective agreement – and the employee, under which the collective wage agreements in force binding the transferor of the business are to apply, in such a way that the collective wage agreement in force at the time of the transfer of the business applies but collective wage agreements entering into force subsequently do not?

1

| 2. | If that is to be answered in the negative:
  Is it compatible with Article 3(1) of Directive 98/50/EC if the transferee of the business – who is not subject to a collective agreement – is bound by collective wage agreements which have entered into force after the transfer of the business only so long as the transferor of the business is so bound? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If that is to be answered in the negative:

Is it compatible with Article 3(1) of Directive 98/50/EC if the transferee of the business – who is not subject to a collective agreement – is bound by collective wage agreements which have entered into force after the transfer of the business only so long as the transferor of the business is so bound?

---

(1)  OJ L 201, p. 88.

1

---
Section 333 Exemption Petition

OPERATION NEAR AIRPORTS

1/4/16 Battery Ion, inc. 

UAS 

Airport A 

Airport B 

Note: UAS is not to scale and is elevated higher than permitted only to illustrate operation's distance from airports.

Certificate Of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for operations under 200' AGL if:

*5 nautical miles (NM) from an airport having an operational control tower; or

*3 NM from an airport with a published instrument flight procedure, but not an operational tower; or

*2 NM from an airport without a published instrument flight procedure or an operational tower

Figure 1
Section 333 Exemption Petition

OPERATIONS NEAR OFF AIRPORT HELIPORTS

1/4/16 Battery Ion, inc. 

Ground Heliport FATO (0' AGL)

Imaginary protected air space 

8':1' Flight Path

0' AGL 

 2 Nautical Miles from Final Approach Take Off Area (FATO)

sUAS operating air space. 

Figure 2

Certificate Of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for operations under 200' AGL if:

*2 NM from a heliport with a published instrument flight procedure 

200' - 500' AGL 
Section 333 Exemption Petition

ON PROPERTY OPERATIONS AIRSPACE

1/4/16 Battery Ion, inc. 

Property

Line

500' AGL

Pilot In Command

sUAS Landing/Take Off area 

Observer 

Figure 3

200' AGL
**EXHIBIT 23.1**








CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
      333-30515, 333-106092 and 333-117773 on Form S-8 of TIB Financial Corp. of
      our
      report dated February 23, 2006, appearing in this annual report on Form 10-K
      of
      TIB Financial Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2005.








/s/
                Crowe Chizek and Company LLCCrowe
                Chizek and Company LLCFort
                Lauderdale, Florida
              March
                13, 2006
# C_2004266EN.01001101.xml

| 29.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/11

---

AGIS work programme 2005

(2004/C 266/08)

The complete 2005 AGIS work programme and call for proposals is published on the JHA website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/funding/agis/funding_agis_en.htm.

Deadline for presentation of proposals: 15 December 2004.

---
# C_2005006EN.01004002.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/40

---

Action brought on 8 October 2004 by Nadine Schmit against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-419/04)

(2005/C 6/79)

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 8 October 2004 by Nadine Schmit, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten and Pierre Jadoul, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the explicit rejection of 8 July 2004 of the applicant's complaint, the decision not to draw up an evaluation report for the period 2001-2002 and the authority's decision not to include her in the number of officials promoted to Grade C2 in the promotion year 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the explicit rejection of 8 July 2004 of the applicant's complaint, the decision not to draw up an evaluation report for the period 2001-2002 and the authority's decision not to include her in the number of officials promoted to Grade C2 in the promotion year 2003;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 by way of compensation for her non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 by way of compensation for her non-material damage;

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, took sick leave in October 2002. She has received an invalidity pension since September 2003. It was on that basis that the appointing authority decided not to draw up a staff report for the applicant for the period 2001-2002. She therefore received no merit or priority points for the promotion year 2003 and her name was not included in the list of officials promoted to Grade C2.

The applicant challenges the decisions at issue, pleading infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the general provisions implementing that article (decision of the Commission of 26 April 2002) and of the principles of equal treatment and proper administration. In that context, the applicant claims that the Commission was not entitled, at the end of 2002 or at the beginning of 2003, to regard the applicant as an official less than a year away from retirement for whom there was no reason to draw up a staff report. Challenging the decision not to promote her to Grade C2, the applicant alleges breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of equal treatment and proper administration.

---
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

June 26, 2013 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Hearing Docket 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430, Suite 2W1000 

Wilbur Wright Building 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Re: In the Matter of Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

REC:EIVED 

JUL - 1 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682; FAA Case No. 2010NM010105 

Please take notice that henceforth, the undersigned attorney represents the Administrator of the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

For Enforcement 

/ ,/4> 

By: ·~ ,-""~~ Edmy~<f. A verman, 'III 

Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

(202) 267-3147 

Cc: Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have sent the original and one copy by U.S. certified mail, 

postage prepaid, of counsel for the Administrator's Entry of Appearance in the matter of 

Administrator v. Aviation Technica;l Services, Inc; FDMS No. FAA-20 11-0682; FAA Case 

No. 2010NMOI0105, to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Hearing Docket 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430, Suite 2WIOOO 

Wilbur Wright Building 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

I also hereby certify that on this date I have sent one copy by U.S. certified mail, postage 

prepaid, of the foregoing document to 

Date: June 26, 2013 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,795
<SECURITIES>                                     3,004
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                       425
<INVENTORY>                                     22,329
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,163
<PP&E>                                           8,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,713
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,992
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,887
<SALES>                                         52,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,028
<CGS>                                           33,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,494
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,114
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                380
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       380
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005031EN.01001502.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by decision of that court of 10 December 2004 in the case of Magpar VI BV of Naarden against Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-509/04)

(2005/C 31/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), Netherlands, of 10 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Magpar VI BV of Naarden against Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Article 7(1)(bb) of Directive 69/335/EEC, (1) as amended by Directive 73/79/EEC (2), to be interpreted as meaning that if a company, within five years after the acquisition of shares in the course of a share merger that is exempt from capital duty, ceases to hold those shares because the company in which the shares were held has been the subject of a merger, the requirements referred to in the above-mentioned provision of the Directive are to apply to the shares in the acquiring company? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 7(1)(bb) of Directive 69/335/EEC, (1) as amended by Directive 73/79/EEC (2), to be interpreted as meaning that if a company, within five years after the acquisition of shares in the course of a share merger that is exempt from capital duty, ceases to hold those shares because the company in which the shares were held has been the subject of a merger, the requirements referred to in the above-mentioned provision of the Directive are to apply to the shares in the acquiring company?

1

2

| 2. | Is it relevant to question 4.1 that the company in which the shares were held ceased to exist as result of the coming into force of a legal merger with another company (Article 2:311(1) BW), so that it is not possible to speak of a disposal of shares in a literal sense? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it relevant to question 4.1 that the company in which the shares were held ceased to exist as result of the coming into force of a legal merger with another company (Article 2:311(1) BW), so that it is not possible to speak of a disposal of shares in a literal sense?

---

(1)  Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ English special edition: Series I 1969(II) p. 412)

1

(2)  Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 varying the field of application of the reduced rate of capital duty provided for in respect of certain company reconstruction operations by Article 7(1)(b) of the Directive concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 13).

2

---
# C_2005057EN.01000402.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 January 2005

in Case C-225/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social no 3 de Orense): Rosa García Blanco v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (1)

o

1

(Social security of migrant workers - Old age - Unemployment - Minimum periods of insurance - Periods of insurance taken into account for calculating the amount of benefits but not for acquiring the right to those benefits - Periods of unemployment - Aggregation)

(2005/C 57/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-225/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social no 3 de Orense (Spain), made by decision of 30 March 2002, received at the Court on 17 June 2002, in the proceedings between Rosa García Blanco and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General, M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it has ruled:

o

There is no need to reply to the reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C-225/02.

---

(1)  OJ C 191 of 10.08.2002

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - 21 CFR Part 73
          - [Docket No. FDA-2015-C-0245]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

      ( print page 6469)    

# ACTION:

Notice of petition.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by Signature Brands, LLC, proposing that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of mica-based pearlescent pigments in egg decorating kits for coloring shell eggs.

# DATES:

The color additive petition was filed on December 22, 2014.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1309.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 5C0301), submitted by Signature Brands, LLC, c/o Keller and Heckman, LLP, 1001 G Street NW., Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in § 73.350                     *Mica-based pearlescent pigments*                     (21 CFR 73.350), to provide for the safe use of mica-based pearlescent pigments in egg decorating kits for coloring shell eggs.                

We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Dated: January 30, 2015.

Dennis M. Keefe,

Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

[FR Doc. 2015-02239 Filed 2-4-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
# C_2005031EN.01000301.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 12 October 2004

in Case C-87/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova): Roberto Nicoli v Eridania SpA (1)

1

(Sugar - Price system - Regionalisation - Deficit areas - Classification of Italy - Marketing year 1998/99 - Regulations (EEC) No 1785/81 and (EC) No 1361/98 - Validity of Regulation No 1361/98)

(2005/C 31/06)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-87/00: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Giudice di pace di Genova (Italy), made by decision of 28 February 2000, received at the Court on 7 March 2000, in the proceedings between Roberto Nicoli and Eridania SpA – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998 fixing, for the 1998/99 marketing year, the derived intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and the amount of compensation for storage costs.

---

(1)   OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                                    [LOGO]

Via Federal Express and Facsimile                   TeleCorp PCS, Inc.
---------------------------------                   Suite 800
                                                    1010 N. Glebe Road
February 17, 2001                                   Arlington, VA 22201

Ronald G. Bizcik                                    Tel  703.236.1100
Chief Operating Officer                             Fax  703.236.1101
SBA Towers, Inc.
One Town Center Road, 3rd Floor
Boca Raton, FL 33486


Dear Ron:

        I am writing this letter to confirm our agreement today with respect to
that certain, Purchase Agreement ("Agreement") entered into by and among
TeleCorp Realty, LLC, TeleCorp Puerto Rico Realty, Inc., TeleCorp
Communications, Inc. (collectively "TeleCorp") and SBA Towers, Inc. ("SBA") on
September 15, 2000. SBA and TeleCorp hereby agree that a Closing shall occur on
March 16, 2001, at which time a minimum of two hundred (200) Sites shall be
approved for purchase by SBA and conveyed by TeleCorp to NewCo.

        Subsequent to such Closing and through July 19, 2001, SBA and TeleCorp
shall continue pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Agreement to take Curative
Actions with respect to any Sites subject to the Agreement but not yet closed
upon. One or more Closings upon such sites shall occur at such times or times as
may be agreed upon by the parties. In the event a March 16th 2001 Closing does
not occur as contemplated herein, TeleCorp hereby reserves its right under
Section 7(g) to terminate the Agreement as result of the rejection by SBA of
more than fifteen (15) of the two hundred seventy-five (275) sites which were
subject to the Agreement and to pursue any remedies available to it at law or
equity for breach of the Agreement as modified by this letter agreement.

        Except as set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect. If you agree to the modifications to the
Agreement contained herein, please sign the acknowledgement set forth below and
return the signature page to me via facsimile at (703) 236-1376.

                                                Sincerely,

                                                /s/ Ronald W. Keefe

                                                Ronald W. Keefe, Jr.

Acknowledged and agreed to;
SBA Towers, Inc.

By: /s/ Jeffery A. Stoops
   -----------------------
Its: President
    ----------------------
<PAGE>

cc:
Paul Hines
Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, P.A.
777 South Flagler Drive
Suite 500-East Tower
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Todd A. Lewellen
Lewellen & Frazier, PLC
415 North McKinley, Suite 1240
Little Rock, AR 72205

John Marino
Jeffery Stoops
SBA Towers, Inc.
One Town Center Road, 3rd Floor
Boca Raton, FL 33486