alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021206EN.01003701.xml

| 31.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/37

---

Action brought on 31 March 2021 — CCTY Bearing Company v EUIPO — CCVI International (CCTY)

(Case T-176/21)

(2021/C 206/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CCTY Bearing Company (Zhenjiang, China) (represented by: L. Genz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CCVI International Srl (Vicenza, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark CCTY — European Union trade mark No 11 550 886

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2021 in Case R 779/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings and the cancellation proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings and the cancellation proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 71 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 71 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 87 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 87

 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en 
    bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight 
                    rules'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en 
    bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight 
                    rules'', and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF DISAPPROVAL PERTAINING 
              TO ``MIDNIGHT RULES''.

    (a) In General.--Section 801(d) of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under paragraph 
(1), a joint resolution of disapproval may contain one or more such 
rules if the report under subsection (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was 
submitted during the final year of a President's term.''.
    (b) Text of Resolving Clause.--Section 802(a) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting after ``resolving clause of which is'' the 
        following: ``(except as otherwise provided in this 
        subsection)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of a 
        joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), the matter after the 
        resolving clause of such resolution shall be as follows: `That 
        Congress disapproves the following rules: the rule submitted by 
        the __ relating to __; and the rule submitted by the __ 
        relating to __. Such rules shall have no force or effect.' (The 
        blank spaces being appropriately filled in and additional 
        clauses describing additional rules to be included as 
        necessary)''.
                                 <all>
```
Larry Greene AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 

916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax 

www.airquality.org 

June 14, 2012 

Mr. Michael Guzzetta 

Stationary Source Division 

California Air Resources Board 

PO Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, SMAQMD Rule 421 

Dear Mr. Guzzetta: 

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of Rule 421, Mandatory Episodic 

Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid Fuel Burning, for revision to the State Implementation 

Plan. Rule 421 was amended by the District’s Board of Directors on September 24, 2009. This 

rule reduces emissions of particulate matter by restricting operating of wood burning appliances 

on days where the particulate matter concentration is forecast to exceed ambient air quality 

standards. 

The rule was originally adopted on October 25, 2007; however, that version of the rule was not 

submitted for inclusion in the SIP. I have attached documents from the 2007 adoption to assist 

in the evaluation of the current submittal. 

Please also forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA. If you have any comments or 

questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. 

Program Coordinator 

(sent via e-mail) 

c: Alex Krichevsky 

Attachments: 

1. Rule 421 SIP Checklist Rule 

2. Rule 421, Final Version 

3. Rule 421, Underline/Strikeout Version 

4. Public Notice Evidence 

5. Resolution 

6. Public Comments and Staff Responses (Staff Report Appendix F) 

7. Public Comments and Staff Responses (Received after Hearing Notice) 

8. Rule 421 Evaluation Form 
Mr. Michael Guzzetta 

June 5, 2012 

Page 2 

9. Board Memo 

10. Staff Report (w/o Appendix F) 

11. 2007 Final Rule 

12. 2007 Proposed Rule and Options 

13. 2007 Public Comments 

14. 2007 Board Memo 

15. 2007 Staff Report
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40389 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAVID LEE SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CV-155

- - - - - - - - - - January 27, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * David Lee Smith appeals the district court judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to set aside his sentence. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and we affirm the district court’s judgment. Smith’s claim regarding the quantity of cocaine considered for sentencing purposes alleges an error by the trial court in a technical application of the Sentencing Guidelines. This is not an error of constitutional magnitude. United States v. Vaughn , 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir.No. 98-40389 -2- 1992). The district court did not err in holding that this claim was not cognizable under § 2255. Smith’s allegations that the a court failed to make the proper findings at sentencing regarding relevant conduct and Smith’s role as an organizer of the conspiracy are not grounds for § 2255 relief when they could have been raised on direct appeal. See United States v. Perez , 952 F.2d 908, 910 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court’s holding that Smith’s appellate counsel was effective also does not rise to the level of plain error. See Jones v. Barnes , 463 U.S. 745, 751-754 (1983)(an attorney handling an appeal need not argue every possible issue, even if those issues are nonfrivolous). The district court also did not plainly err in holding that Smith’s deteriorating health was not a cognizable issue under § 2255. Smith’s challenge to the district court’s imposition of a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) also fails. Upon vacating Smith’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for possession of a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, the district court imposed the enhancement to the conspiracy conviction for possessing a firearm during the commission of an offense. The district court’s action was effectively a grant of § 2255 relief and a subsequent resentencing. The court could look to the underlying record for resentencing, and it was not required to make separate findings to repeat the reasons for applying the enhancement.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                  UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                       Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
                       the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

         Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 1, 2003

                       KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

           Delaware                     1-11234                 76-0380342
 (State or other jurisdiction         (Commission            (I.R.S. Employer
       of incorporation)              File Number)          Identification No.)

                          500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000
                              Houston, Texas 77002
          (Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

                                  713-369-9000
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

<PAGE>

Item 9.  Regulation FD Disclosure

     In accordance with General Instruction B.2. of Form 8-K, the following
information shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be deemed incorporated
by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

     Representatives of Kinder Morgan, Inc. ("KMI"), Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P. ("KMP") and Kinder Morgan Management, LLC ("KMR") intend to make
presentations on April 1, 2003 at the 31st Annual Howard Weil Energy Conference
to address company strategy and philosophy, the fiscal year 2003 budget, and
other business information about KMI, KMP and KMR. Prior to the meetings,
interested parties will be able to view the materials presented at the meetings
by visiting KMI's web site at: www.kindermorgan.com/investor/presentations.


                                       2

<PAGE>

                                S I G N A T U R E

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf
by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                          KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P.

                          By:    KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC.
                                 its general partner

                                 By:    KINDER MORGAN MANAGEMENT, LLC,
                                        its delegate

Dated:  March 31, 2003                  By:   /s/Joseph Listengart
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Joseph Listengart
                                              Vice President and General Counsel



                                       3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

RICHARD COLUCCIO, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

MICHAEL KARP, AND JAMES 

D'ANGELO, JR., AND D'ANGELO 

INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 180 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
### In re Marisa Cristina

Balderas Appellant/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 10, 2014

No. 04-14-00026-CV

IN RE Marisa Cristina BALDERAS

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On January 10, 2014, relator Marisa Cristina Balderas filed a petition for writ of mandamus and

an emergency motion for temporary relief. The real party in interest filed a request for time to file a

response to the mandamus petition and motion for temporary relief. This court is of the opinion that a

serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real parties in interest may file a response to the petition for writ

of mandamus in this court no later than 4:00 p.m., Monday, January 13, 2014. Specifically, the

respondent and real parties in interest are requested to address the issue of the district court’s

mandamus jurisdiction. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

Relator’s request for temporary emergency relief is GRANTED. Any further printing or mailing

of early primary ballots for the March 4, 2014 Democratic Primary by the Bexar County Democratic

Party, its agents, servants, representatives or contractors is temporarily stayed pending final resolution of

the mandamus petition filed in this court.

The real party in interest’s motion for time to respond is GRANTED IN PART. Any response is

to be filed no later than January 13, 2014.

It is so ORDERED on January 10th, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-CI-20486, styled In re Brenda Levenstein

, pending in the 285th

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David Peeples presiding.
ç0Sr4

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

PRO

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901

OCT 062011

Mr. Rob Bamford, Chief

Bureau of Air Quality Planning

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

901 South Stewart Street, Suite 4001

Carson City, Nevada 8970 1-5249

Dear 1mford:

In response to your request, dated August 19, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region

IX, (EPA) hereby grants to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) formal delegation

ofthe following Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 63 (40 CFR Part 63) National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) recently promulgated in the Federal Register:

• The amendments to Subpart LLL as set forth in 75 FR 54970 (September 9, 2010)

• The amendments to Subpart ZZZZ as set forth in 75 FR 51570 (August 20, 2010) and 76

FR 12863 (March 9, 2011)

• Subpart DDDDD as set forth in 76 FR 15608 (March 21, 2011)

• Subpart BBBBBB as set forth in 73 FR 1916 (January 10, 2008), and amendments

through 76 FR 4156 (January 24, 2011)

• Subpart CCCCCC as set forth in 73 FR 1916 (January 10, 2008), and amendments

through 76 FR 4156 (January 24, 2011)

• Subpart HHHHHH as set forth in 73 FR 1738 (January 9, 2008)

• Subpart JJJJJJ as set forth in 76 FR 15554 (March 21, 2011)

• Subpart VVVVVV as set forth in 76 FR 13514 (March 14, 2011)

• Subpart WWWWWW as set forth in 73 FR 37728 (July 1, 2008)

• Subpart XXXXXX as set forth in 73 FR 42978 (July 23, 2008)

• Subpart ZZZZZZ as set forth in 74 FR 30366 (June 25, 2009)

• Subpart AAAAAAA as set forth in 74 FR 63236 (December 2, 2009)

• Subpart BBBBBBB as set forth in 74 FR 69194 (December 30, 2009)

• Subpart CCCCCCC as set forth in 75 FR 10184 (March 5, 2010)

• Subpart EEEEEEE as set forth in 76 FR 9450 (February 17, 2011)

Regarding any other 40 CFR Part 63 standard previously delegated to NDEP, this letter is also

delegating any amendments made to those standards as of July 1, 2010. In this letter, we are responding

only to your request for delegation of 40 CFR Part 63 NESHAP. You will receive a separate letter

addressing delegation of 40 CFR Part 60 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.

These delegations are being granted in accordance with the September 3, 1997, Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) between NDEP and EPA regarding the delegation of NESHAP. As set forth in the

MOA, these delegations are effective upon the date ofthis letter and EPA will publish a future Federal

Register notice to codify these delegations into the Code of Federal Regulations.

Printed on Ree (led Paper
We appreciate NDEP’ s efforts to implement the federal air toxics program and hope to continue

working with you to reduce emissions of air toxics in Nevada. If you have any questions about this

delegation, please call me at (415) 947-8715 or have your staff contact Mae Wang at (415) 947-4124.

Sincerely,

cc: Colleen Cripps, Administrator, NDEP

Larry Kennedy, Chief, Bureau of Air Pollution Control, NDEP

Adele Malone, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, NDEP

Director, Air Division
# C_2022213EN.01003201.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 11 March 2022 — ME v État belge

(Case C-191/22)

(2022/C 213/43)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ME

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Must Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and [Article 4(1)(c)] of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) and the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty be interpreted as requiring Member States to take into account the age of a child for whom family reunification is sought not at the date of the application for family reunification but at the date when the sponsor, who has been recognised as a refugee, submitted his or her application for international protection and to regard that child as a minor within the meaning of Article 4[(1)(c)] of Directive 2003/86/EC where that child was a minor at the time that the sponsor submitted his or her application for asylum but attained majority before the sponsor obtained refugee status and before the application for family reunification was lodged?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

---
#### Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah OMRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Nicole Roy; Unknown Defendant, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-30535 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 7, 2018

Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah Omran, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah Omran unsuccessfully pursued claims based on alleged damage to his laptop, and we dismissed his appeal as frivolous. *See Omran v. United States,*668 Fed.Appx. 131, 131-32 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1343, 197 L.Ed.2d 532 (2017). He now appeals the dismissal of a motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil *416Procedure in an attempt to revive his dismissed claims. We affirm.

Omran fails to demonstrate that the original judgment is void or any other basis for Rule 60(b) relief. *See Norris*v. *Causey,*869 F.3d 360, 366 (6th Cir. 2017); *Pryor v. U.S. Postal Service,*769 F.2d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, under these circumstances, he also fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by prohibiting the filing of additional meritless challenges to the judgment in this closed case. *See Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A.,*808 F.2d 358, 359-60 (5th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
  As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
report and to all other references to our Firm included in or made a part of
this registration statement.
 
                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Houston, Texas
   
July 2, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5482]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME: 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 12, 1997.

PLACE: The Board Room, 5th Floor, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, 
DC 20594.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED: 6598A Marine Accident Report: Grounding of the 
Panamanian Passenger Ship ROYAL MAJESTY on Rose and Crown Shoal near 
Nantucket, Massachusetts, June 10, 1995.

    News Media Contact: Telephone: (202) 314-6100.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Bea Hardesty, (202) 314-6065.

    Dated: February 28, 1997.
Bea Hardesty,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-5482 Filed 3-28-97; 4:55 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
September 22, 2015 

Dear Mr. Foster: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA-2015-2706). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manuals. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 10/6/15. If we do not receive the 

information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
No. 11-10481.

#### Efstathiou *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 3d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.