alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Barry, Respondent, vs. Baker and another, Appellants.

For'the appellants: *Hanitch, Hartley, Johnson & Fritsch-lér*df -Superior.

For the respondent: *Cadigan & Cadigan*of Superior.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
# C_2005143EN.01001301.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-171/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/80/EC - non-transposition)

(2005/C 143/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-171/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H. Sevenster and J. van Bakel) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 5 April 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of Chamber, N. Colneric and E. Juhász (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that by not adopting the legislation, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by not adopting the legislation, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004

1

---
# C_2004272EN.01001501.xml

| 6.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/15

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG EAC No 66/04

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

MEDIA PLUS

Support for the development of production projects (‘media new talent’, single projects and slate funding)

(2004/C 272/11)

1.   Objectives and description

The aim of MEDIA Plus (Development) is to support the development of production projects for the European and international markets in the following genres: fiction, creative documentaries, animation and multimedia.

2.   Eligible applicants

Only independent companies whose main activity is audiovisual and/or multimedia production are eligible for support. Applicant companies must be established in one of the following countries:

| — | the 25 Member States of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

the 25 Member States of the European Union,

| — | the EFTA and EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, or |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA and EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, or

| — | Bulgaria. |
| --- | --- |

—

Bulgaria.

Applicant companies must also provide evidence that they have the previous experience of audiovisual production required in accordance with the guidelines.

3.   Budget

The total budget earmarked for the cofinancing of projects is estimated at EUR 17 million. Financial assistance from the Commission cannot exceed 50 % of the total eligible costs (60 % for projects highlighting Europe's cultural diversity). The maximum subsidy in the case of slate funding is EUR 150 000. For single projects it varies between EUR 10 000 and 80 000 depending on the genre.

4.   Deadline

Applications must be sent to the Commission between 9 November 2004 and

| — | 15 February 2005 (‘MEDIA New Talent’) |
| --- | --- |

—

15 February 2005 (‘MEDIA New Talent’)

| — | 31 May 2005 (single projects and slate funding). |
| --- | --- |

—

31 May 2005 (single projects and slate funding).

5.   Detailed information

The complete guidelines together with the application forms are available on the website http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/media/index_en.html. Applications must comply with the requirements set out in the guidelines and be submitted using the form provided.

---
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Forage and Biomass Planting, Integrated Pest Management, Nutrient Management, Prescribed Grazing, Range Planting.

**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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          32,248
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,667,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,506,893
<INVENTORY>                                  2,560,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,145,055
<PP&E>                                       1,149,775
<DEPRECIATION>                                 907,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,035,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,008,653
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,108
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,295,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,035,020
<SALES>                                     42,370,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,370,400
<CGS>                                       27,383,857
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               45,103,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (702,414)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,328,044
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,358,283)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,053,106)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,305,177)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,211,005)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                   (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                         Three Months Ended                 Six Months Ended
                                                            September 30,                    September 30,
                                                            -------------                    -------------

                                                        1996             1995            1996             1995
                                                        ----             ----            ----             ----


<S>                                                      <C>             <C>              <C>              <C>      
Weighted average common shares outstanding               7,562,500       5,290,000        7,150,416        5,290,000

Dilutive effect of common equivalent shares(a)              38,900          38,900           38,900           38,900
                                                            ------          ------           ------           ------

Weighted average shares outstanding                      7,601,400       5,328,900        7,189,316        5,328,900
                                                         =========       =========        =========        =========

Net loss                                             $ (2,319,108)     $ (156,968)      $ 3,232,856      $ (166,968)
                                                     ============      ==========       ===========      ========== 

Fully diluted earnings per share(b)                        $ (.31)         $ (.03)          $ (.45)          $ (.03)
                                                           ======          ======           ======           ====== 


<FN>
(a)  Calculates the dilutive effect of outstanding  stock options based upon the
     "Treasury Stock Method".

(b)  As fully  diluted  earnings  per share and primary  earnings  per share are
     equal,  only fully diluted earnings per share will be disclosed in the Form
     10-QSB.
</FN>

</TABLE>
# C_2005106EN.01000502.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 3 March 2005

in Case C-172/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) Wolfgang Heiser v Finanzamt Innsbruck (1)

1

(VAT - Exemption for medical care provided in the exercise of the profession of medical practitioner - Adjustment of deductions)

(2005/C 106/09)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-172/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 31 March 2003, received at the Court on 14 April 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Wolfgang Heiser and Finanzamt Innsbruck — the Court: (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| | Article 92 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) must be interpreted as meaning that a rule, such as that laid down by Paragraph XIV(3) of Federal Law 21/1995, as amended by Federal Law 756/1996, providing that the changeover for medical practitioners from taxable to exempt status for the purposes of VAT does not, in relation to goods that continue to be used in the business, entail the reduction of input tax already deducted that is prescribed by Article 20 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be classified as State aid. |
| --- | --- |

Article 92 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) must be interpreted as meaning that a rule, such as that laid down by Paragraph XIV(3) of Federal Law 21/1995, as amended by Federal Law 756/1996, providing that the changeover for medical practitioners from taxable to exempt status for the purposes of VAT does not, in relation to goods that continue to be used in the business, entail the reduction of input tax already deducted that is prescribed by Article 20 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be classified as State aid.

---

(1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.

1

---
# C_2005045EN.01002202.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/22

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 December 2004

in Case T-332/02: Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. Snc, Livio Danielis and Domenico D'Alessandro v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Customs Union - Community transit operation - Fraud - Cigarette smuggling - Remission of import duties - Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Article 13: equitable provision - Meaning of ‘special situation’)

(2005/C 45/50)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-332/02: Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. Snc, established in Trieste (Italy), Livio Danielis, residing in Trieste, and Domenico D'Alessandro, residing in Trieste, represented by G. Leone, Lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially X. Lewis and R. Amorosi, and subsequently X. Lewis assisted by G. Bambara, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision REM 14/01 of 28 June 2002 refusing to accede to the Italian Republic's application for a remission of import duties in favour of the applicants and, in the alternative, for a declaration of remission of part of the customs debt corresponding to those duties – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2004, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.

1

---
October 23, 2015

J.B. Taschner

2029 Century Park East Suite 400

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Dear J.B. Taschner:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your June 22, 2015 exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA-2015-3341, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
*October 14, 1930.*

#### Passmore, Appellant, vs. Jennings and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Bloodgood, Kemper & Passmore,*attorneys, and *Eric Wm. Passmore*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondents: *Shaw, Muskat & Sullivan*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005093EN.01002502.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/25

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 February 2005

in Case T-169/02 Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a bottle of beer including the verbal element ‘negra modelo’ - Earlier national figurative mark Modelo - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 93/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case T-169/02: Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV, established in Mexico, represented by C. Lema Devesa and A. Velázquez Ibáñez, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J. Crespo Carrillo and I. de Medrano Caballero), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal, and intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Modelo Continente Hipermercados, SA, established in Senhora da Hora (Portugal), represented by N. Cruz, J. Pimenta and T. Colaço Dias, lawyers — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2002 (Cases R 536/2001-3 and R 674/2001-3), concerning opposition proceedings between Cervecería Modelo, SA de CV and Modelo Continente Hipermercados, SA — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Labucka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 February 2005, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.

1

---
National Reconnaissance Office Release #02-20

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 31, 2020

Contact: (703) 808-5050 

NROL-151 launches first dedicated mission from New Zealand

A National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) payload was successfully launched 

aboard a Rocket Lab Electron rocket from Launch Complex-1, Mahia Peninsula, 

New Zealand, at 3:56 p.m. NZDT on Jan. 31, 2020.

“Thank you to the entire team who helped make our first dedicated launch from New 

Zealand a success,” said U.S. Air Force Colonel Chad Davis, director, NRO Office of 

Space Launch. “We especially thank the men and women of both Rocket Lab and 

the New Zealand Space Agency for their focus and hard work helping us achieve 

another successful mission for the NRO. We look forward to our continued 

collaboration.” 

NROL-151 is a national security payload designed, built and operated by the NRO 

and is the agency’s first launch for 2020. 

Additionally, NROL-151 is the first launch under the NRO’s Rapid Acquisition of a 

Small Rocket (RASR) contract, which was announced by the agency in April 2018. 

RASR enables the agency to explore new opportunities for launching small satellites 

through a streamlined, commercial approach. This approach allows the NRO to 

pursue the use of both large and small satellites for an integrated architecture 

designed to provide global coverage against a wide range of intelligence 

requirements. 

-NROThe NRO is the Intelligence Community element and a Department of Defense agency

responsible for developing, acquiring, launching, and operating America’s intelligence satellites to 

meet the national security needs of our nation.
# C_2005139EN.01003601.xml

| 8.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/36

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3801 — CVC/Gilde/Bekaert Fencing)

(2005/C 139/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 31 May 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 English 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 32005M3801. 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 32005M3801. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
west virginia depahent of environmental protection 

Executive Office Joe Manchin 111, Governor 

601 57th Street SE . Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary 

Charleston, WV 25304 www.wvdep.org 

Phone: (304) 926-0440 

Fay: (304) 926-0446 

June 18,2008 

Mr. Donald S. Welsh 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region I11 (3RA00) 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19 103-2029 

Dear Administrator Welsh: Re: Final State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

Meet Obligations Under the Regional 

Haze Rule (40 CFR 5 1.308) 

In a letter dated October 25, 2007, this agency submitted a proposed revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of West Virginia to meet its obligations under the federal 

Regional Haze Rule. The proposed submittal expressly addressed the pertinent requirements of 

the Clean Air Act section 169A and the associated requirements of the Haze Rule at 40 CFR 

5 1.308. We have now completed the public participation process and are herein submitting the 

final SIP. I request that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approve this 

submittal as a revision to the SIP in a timely manner. 

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, or require additional information, please 

contact John A. Benedict, Director of the Division of Air Quality, at (304) 926-0462. 

Sincerely, 

Randy C. Huffman 

Cabinet Secretary 

RCWj lm 

Enclosure 

Promoting a healthy environment.