alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023035EN.01002101.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/21

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — NC v Compania Naţională de Transporturi Aeriene Tarom SA

(Case C-229/22) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1)(c)(iii) - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Cancellation of a flight - Right to compensation in the case of an offer of re-routing - Conditions - Divergence between different language versions of a provision of EU law - Re-routing allowing passengers to depart no more than one hour before their scheduled time of departure)

(2023/C 35/24)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NC

Defendant: Compania Naţională de Transporturi Aeriene Tarom SA

Operative part of the order

Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91,

must be interpreted as meaning that in the event of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7 of that regulation, unless they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure, if that air carrier offers them re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 29.3.2022.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
balance sheet of CNL Income Fund III, Ltd. at March 31, 2000,  and its statement
of income for the three  months then ended and is  qualified  in its entirety by
reference  to the Form 10-Q of CNL Income Fund III,  Ltd.  for the three  months
ended March 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         896,283
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,105
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         14,544,285
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,844,057
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,288,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,447,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,288,156
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               457,279
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  154,792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                346,438
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            346,438
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   346,438
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its  industry,  CNL Income  Fund III,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;therefore,  no values are shown  above for  current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>



</TABLE>
# Ex-Soviet Bioweapons Labs in Georgia, Armenia, and Elsewhere Now Fighting the Coronavirus Targeted by a Russian Disinformation Campaign Over U.S. Support

/ Published July 9, 2022

by Paul Stronski with foreignpolicy.com

A network of Soviet-era laboratories once used to track plague outbreaks and develop bioweapons during the Cold War is at the front line of the fight against the coronavirus pandemic in Central Asia and the Caucasus. That hasn’t stopped Russia from instigating a propaganda and disinformation campaign against these labs, which were modernized and converted to civilian purposes long ago. That’s because these disease-control labs, located in former fiefs of the Soviet empire, are a legacy of one of the most successful and benevolent foreign-policy programs the United States has ever undertaken.

**To read more**
# C_2021462EN.01005301.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/53

---

Action brought on 15 September 2021 — lastminute v EUIPO — Scai (B Heroes)

(Case T-587/21)

(2021/C 462/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: lastminute foundation (Chiasso, Switzerland) (represented by: C. De Marchi and D. Contini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scai Comunicazione Srl unipersonale (Potenza, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark B Heroes in magenta and grey — European Union trade mark No 17 582 891

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 July 2021 in Joined Cases R 1245/2020-5 and R 1279/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal upheld in part the appeal in Case R 1245/2020-5 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1279/2020-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal upheld in part the appeal in Case R 1245/2020-5 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1279/2020-5;

| — | accordingly, confirm that European Union trade mark No 17 582 891 remains registered in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, confirm that European Union trade mark No 17 582 891 remains registered in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2021098EN.01003201.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/32

---

Action brought on 26 January 2021 — About You v EUIPO — Safe-1 Immobilieninvest (Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U)

(Case T-51/21)

(2021/C 98/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: About You GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Safe-1 Immobilieninvest GmbH (Mauer, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U — European Union trade mark No 10 226 918

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2020 in Case R 530/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | hold an oral hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

hold an oral hearing;

| — | annul the contested decision with the consequence that EUIPO shall revoke the EUTM entirely; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision with the consequence that EUIPO shall revoke the EUTM entirely;

| — | order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear its/their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceeding before the General Court and in the appellate proceeding before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear its/their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceeding before the General Court and in the appellate proceeding before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the requirements of evidence in terms of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the requirements of evidence in terms of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations;

| — | Infringement of Article 58 (in connection with Article 18) and Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and respectively in connection with Articles 10, 19 and 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58 (in connection with Article 18) and Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and respectively in connection with Articles 10, 19 and 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          17,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  443,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    197,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               771,559
<PP&E>                                       4,215,191
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,794,732)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,219,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,377,483
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,508
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,219,318
<SALES>                                      1,578,569
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,578,569
<CGS>                                          767,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  767,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               763,933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,858
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,406
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,406
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 831 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to request nominations for and 

make determinations regarding roads to be designated under the national 

scenic byways program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2019 

Mr. CICILLINE (for himself and Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to request nominations for and make determinations regarding roads to 

be designated under the national scenic byways program, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Reviving America’s 

5 Scenic Byways Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAYS PROGRAM. 

7 (a) REQUEST FOR NOMINATIONS.—Not later than 90 

8 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 831 IH

1 of Transportation shall issue a request for nominations 

2 with respect to roads to be designated under the national 

3 scenic byways program, as described in section 162(a) of 

4 title 23, United States Code. The Secretary shall make 

5 the request for nominations available on the appropriate 

6 website of the Department of Transportation. 

7 (b) DESIGNATION DETERMINATIONS.—Not later 

8 than 1 year after the date on which the request for nomi9 nations required under subsection (a) is issued, the Sec10 retary shall make publicly available on the appropriate 

11 website of the Department of Transportation a list speci12 fying the roads, nominated pursuant to such request, to 

13 be designated under the national scenic byways program. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 7/29/15

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Presentation on the Proposed Clean Power Plan at ABA SEER Conference in Atlanta on 

March 3, 2015

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at the ABA SEER 

Conference in Atlanta, GA, on March 3, 2015. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was 

proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Keri Powell/R4

Approximately 30 additional Region 4 staff

External Stakeholders

Approximately 70 attendees, including representatives from regulated companies, private law firms, 

state and local governments, universities, and nongovernmental organizations.

ATTACHMENT
# C_2022073EN.01006502.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/65

---

Action brought on 23 December 2021 — NS v Parliament

(Case T-805/21)

(2022/C 73/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the decision of 21 January 2021 reassigning the applicant to the post of Adviser in the Directorate-General for the Presidency and, to the extent necessary, the decision of 8 March 2021 to recover the overpayment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 21 January 2021 reassigning the applicant to the post of Adviser in the Directorate-General for the Presidency and, to the extent necessary, the decision of 8 March 2021 to recover the overpayment;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 September 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 7 April 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 September 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 7 April 2021;

| — | make good the applicant’s material and non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

make good the applicant’s material and 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

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular breach of the right to be heard and breach of the obligation to give reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular breach of the right to be heard and breach of the obligation to give reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest lack of interest of the service and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest lack of interest of the service and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power and abuse of process. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power and abuse of process.

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF WATER



### MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Revising Public Comment Deadline for EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146 on Regulations.gov for Public Access 

### FROM:

THRU:

TO: Erin Flannery-Kei _0"'· ....,

## '::U~

## ...**~'t-** Water Permits Division r 

## C Q-**~.** Office of Wastewater**~~ement** Deborah G
. Nagle

## N~ Director, Water Permits Division Office of Wastewater Management HQ Docket Manager 

### JUN 27 2016

This memorandum authorizes revising the public comment period for of EPA-HQ-OW2016-0 I 46 on Regulations.gov for public access. The comment period should now end on August 2, 2016. This is a non-rulemaking docket. It is related to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates Proposed Rule, EPAHQ-OW-2016-0145 ("NPDES Updates Rule"). Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146 includes draft revised NPDES permit application forms. In this docket, members of the public are encouraged to submit comments on the permit application forms that are not related to the proposed regulatory changes in the NPDES Updates Rule. Dockets EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145 and 0146 were originally posted on May 18, 2016 and the public comment period was originally going to end on July 18, 2016. On June 27, 2016, EPA extended the public comment period for the NPDES Updates Rule, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0145 to August 2, 2016. By this memorandum, the public comment period for Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016- 0 I 46 will now close on August 2, 2016.

Internet Address (URL) • http ://www .epa .gov Recyc led/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperSubmit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0146, to the 

### Federal eRulemaking Portal: http :// www. regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations
.gov . EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc .) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system)
. For additional submission methods , the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http ://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets
. 

### FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Flannery-Keith, Water Permits Division , Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW , Washington , DC 20460 ; (202) 566- 0689 ; flannery-keith. erin @ epa.gov.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6422

JOHN F. GASTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-05-83-2)

Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John F. Gaston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John F. Gaston seeks a certificate of appealability from

the district court’s order denying relief on his petition for

habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Gaston has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gaston’s motion for a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED