alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 24, 2020

b1116 

# Order

Clerk November 24, 2020

161191

JAMES BYARS,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 161191

AGC: 2065

- 13

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and

relief is DENIED, because the C ourt is not persuaded that it should grant the requested

relief.

C AVANAGH

, J., did not participate due to her prior service as a member of the

Attorney Grievance Commission.
# C_2022340EN.01002301.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/23

---

Appeal brought on 4 July 2022 by Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2022 in Case T-423/14 RENV, Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v Commission

(Case C-445/22P)

(2022/C 340/30)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, I. Drillerakis and E. Rantos, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 4 May 2022 in Case T-423/14 RENV, Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (ECLI:EU:T:2022:268); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court (Third Chamber) on 4 May 2022 in Case T-423/14 RENV, Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (ECLI:EU:T:2022:268);

| — | refer the matter back to the General Court for reconsideration; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the matter back to the General Court for reconsideration; and

| — | reserve the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the present proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on the following ground of appeal:

Ground of appeal: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the General Court found that measure No 2 (2008 State guarantee) conferred an advantage on the appellant

According to the appellant, the General Court’s assessment that measure No 2 (2008 State guarantee) conferred an advantage on the appellant, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, is vitiated by a number of errors of law.

The appellant submits in particular that the General Court’s finding is vitiated, first, by an error of assessment of point 3.2(d) of the Guarantee Notice and, second, by an incorrect allocation of the burden of proof between the Commission and the Member State concerned, in breach of the authority devolving from the case-law of the Court of Justice.

Furthermore, the conclusion reached by the judgment under appeal rests on completely insufficient evidence which, in any event, does not predate the granting of measure No 2, in breach of the case-law of the Court in the judgment of 26 March 2020, Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v Commission (C-244/18 P, EU:C:2020:238).

Lastly, the appellant submits that that conclusion is based merely on a negative assumption, which rests on the lack of information allowing the opposite conclusion to be reached, without there being any other evidence of such a nature as positively to establish the existence of such an advantage.

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
February 8, 2061 Robert D. Fletcher Deputy Executive Officer California Air Resources Board 

### P. 0. Box 28 15 Sacramento,CA 958 12 Dear Mr.

# kj:
danuar y 7,2011,the California Air Resources Board submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan 

### (SP). We have reviewed materials submitted with the following negative declarations and found that they fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 5 1,Appendix V.

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will review the complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 11 O(k). APCDIAQMD Antelope Valley Antelope Valley Antelope Valley

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia 

### G. Allen at (415) 947-4120. 1 Negative Declarations Ship Repair Operations Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating RoofTanks

Director, Air Division

cc: Mr. Eldon Heaston, Executive Director Mojave Desert AQMD Mr. Michael Guzzetta, Manager Rule Evaluation Section Stationary Source Division

l'rrrttc,cl orr Kei.vc.led Paper
IB 

Union Calendar No. 405 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 895 

[Report No. 116–505, Part I] 

To allow tribal grant schools to participate in the Federal Employee Health 

Benefits program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2019 

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the 

Committees on Oversight and Reform, and Energy and Commerce, 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 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Additional sponsors: Mr. COLE, Mr. O’HALLERAN, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. 

LUJA ́N, Mr. GALLEGO, Mr. JOYCE of Ohio, Mrs. AXNE, Ms. SCHRIER, 

Mr. HECK, Mr. WATKINS, Ms. TORRES SMALL of New Mexico, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM, and Ms. HAALAND

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Committees on Oversight and Reform and Energy and Commerce discharged; 

committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 

Union and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 895 RH

A BILL 

To allow tribal grant schools to participate in the Federal 

Employee Health Benefits program. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 895 RH

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 ‘‘Tribal School Federal 

5 Insurance Parity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN HEALTH CARE IM7 PROVEMENT ACT. 

8 Section 409 of the Indian Health Care Improvement 

9 Act (25 U.S.C. 1647b) is amended by inserting ‘‘or the 

10 Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 

11 et seq.)’’ after ‘‘(25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.)’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 405 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 895 

[Report No. 116–505, Part I] 

A BILL 

To allow tribal grant schools to participate in the 

Federal Employee Health Benefits program. 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 

Committees on Oversight and Reform and Energy and 

dered to be printed the Whole House on the State of the Union and orCommerce discharged; committed to the Committee of 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Cite as State v. Wetzel , 2019-Ohio-826.]

COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. SHANE L. GREEN

Relator

-vsRICHARD WETZEL, JUDGE Respondent JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. : Hon. John W. Wise, J. : : : Case No. 18CA15 : : : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 8, 2019

APPEARANCES: For Relator For Respondent

SHANE L. GREEN PRO SE CHARLES T. MCCONVILLE MCI# 578-590 Knox County Prosecutor Box 57 117 E. High Street, Ste. 234 Marion, OH 43301 Mount Vernon, OH 43050[Cite as State v. Wetzel , 2019-Ohio-826.]

Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Relator Shane Green has filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus requesting this Court order a new sentencing hearing. He seeks to have this Court orderthe trial court to impose an indefinite sentence of life as well as properly impose postrelease control. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. {¶2} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish by clear and convincing evidence a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to grant that relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth , 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13; State ex rel. Perry Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Husted, Secy. , 2018-Ohio-3830. {¶3} Relator previously raised both issues presented in this petition in Knox County Case Number 18-CA-03. 1 This Court found the sentencing issue was barred by res judicata because Relator could have raised the issue on direct appeal. Further, we found the term of post-release control was properly imposed. {¶4} “[U]nder the doctrine of res judicata, an existing final judgment or decree binding the parties is conclusive as to all claims that were or could have been litigated in

a first lawsuit. Grava , 73 Ohio St.3d at 381–382, 653 N.E.2d 226. Res judicata requires

1 In that case, we noted, “Appellant makes two separate arguments in his appellate brief. First, he contends the trial court failed to state a term of post-release control as mandated by law and he was not properly notified of his post-release control. Second, he argues that the trial court erred when it did not impose an indefinite prison term under R.C. 2971.03(A)(3) and instead imposed a definite term of life imprisonment.” State v. Green , 5th Dist. Knox No. 18-CA-3, 2018-Ohio-1493, ¶ 8.Knox County, Case No. 18CA15 3

a plaintiff to present every ground for relief in the first action or be forever barred from asserting it. Id. ” State ex rel. Robinson v. Huron Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 143 Ohio St.3d 127, 2015–Ohio–1553, 34 N.E.3d 903, ¶ 8 (2015). {¶5} Because Relator raised these issues in previous actions, he is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from re-litigating those issues in this case. {¶6} Relator has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus, therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted.

By Gwin, P.J., Hoffman, J., and Wise, John, J., concur
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5935]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM97-9-29-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997 Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing certain revised tariff 
sheets to Third Revised Volume No. 1 of its FERC Gas Tariff enumerated 
in Appendix A attached to the filing.
    Transco states that the instant filing is submitted pursuant to 
Section 38 of the General Terms and Conditions of Transco's FERC Gas 
Tariff which provides that Transco will file, to be effective each 
April 1, a redetermination of its fuel retention percentages applicable 
to transportation and storage rate schedules. The derivations of the 
revised fuel retention percentages included herein are based on 
Transco's estimate of gas required for operations (GRO) for the 
forthcoming annual period April 1997 through March 1998 plus the 
balance accumulated in the Deferred GRO Account at January 31, 1997.
    Transco states that an alternate tariff sheet has also been 
tendered for filing which reflects a change in the method used to 
derive the fuel retention factor applicable to Section 7(c) firm 
transportation service provided by Transco under Rate Schedule FT-NT. 
The proposed method would effect the sole remaining Rate Schedule FT-NT 
shipper (New York Power Authority) in that they would be assessed the 
system transmission fuel retention percentage in zone 6 rather than an 
incrementally determined fuel percentage.
    Included in Appendices B and B-1 attached to the filing are the 
workpapers supporting the derivation of the revised fuel retention 
factors.
    Transco states that copies of the filing have been served upon its 
affected customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5935 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2023296EN.01001301.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj — Romania) — FS and WU v First Bank SA

(Case C-593/22, (1) First Bank)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Scope - Article 1(2) - Exclusion of contractual terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions - Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Terms relating to the exchange rate - Presumption of knowledge of the law)

(2023/C 296/14)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: FS and WU

Respondent: First Bank SA

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts
  must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to fall within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is not necessary for the term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier to quote the corresponding mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law verbatim or to refer expressly thereto, but it is sufficient that it is substantively equivalent to that mandatory provision, that is to say that it has the same normative content. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to fall within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is not necessary for the term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier to quote the corresponding mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law verbatim or to refer expressly thereto, but it is sufficient that it is substantively equivalent to that mandatory provision, that is to say that it has the same normative content.

| 2. | Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13
  must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier falls within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is irrelevant that the consumer has no knowledge of the fact that that term reflects a mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13

must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a term included in a loan agreement concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier falls within the exclusion from the scope of that directive laid down by that provision, it is irrelevant that the consumer has no knowledge of the fact that that term reflects a mandatory statutory or regulatory provision of national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 472, 12.12.2022.

---
# C_2021329EN.01004102.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/41

---

Action brought on 2 July 2021 — documentus Deutschland v EUIPO — Reisswolf (REISSWOLF)

(Case T-374/21)

(2021/C 329/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: documentus Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Weller, V. Wolf and A. Wulff)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reisswolf Akten- und Datenvernichtung GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg)

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: EU word mark REISSWOLF — EU trade mark No 5 791 751

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 in Case R 2354/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 9 September 2019 in cancellation proceedings (invalidity) No 17 081 C concerning the EU trade mark REISSWOLF, No 5791751; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 9 September 2019 in cancellation proceedings (invalidity) No 17 081 C concerning the EU trade mark REISSWOLF, No 5791751;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 59(2) in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(2) in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
-78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/24

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.06 N 76.88 W Meters AGL
# C_2022368EN.01001301.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2022 — Mapfre España Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros, S. A. v MACS Maritime Carrier Shipping GmbH & Co.

(Case C-346/22)

(2022/C 368/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mapfre España Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros, S. A.

Defendant: MACS Maritime Carrier Shipping GmbH & Co.

Questions referred

The facts and pleas in law are essentially the same and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling are identical to those in Case C-345/22.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8560 

To provide first-time, low-level, nonviolent simple possession offenders an 

opportunity to expunge that conviction after successful completion of 

court-imposed probation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 9, 2020 

Mr. JEFFRIES (for himself and Mr. TAYLOR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide first-time, low-level, nonviolent simple possession 

offenders an opportunity to expunge that conviction after 

successful completion of court-imposed probation. 

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 ‘‘Kenneth P. Thompson 

5 Begin Again Act’’. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8560 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATING AGE REQUIREMENT FOR 

2 EXPUNGEMENT OF CERTAIN CONVICTIONS 

3 FOR SIMPLE POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED 

4 SUBSTANCES BY NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS. 

5 Section 3607(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘and the person was less than twen7 ty-one years old at the time of the offense,’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with BILLS
### Farngalo, Zuri From: Sent: 

### To: Subject:



### From: Benjamin, Lynorae Huey, Joel Tuesday, May21, 201310:47AM Farngalo, Zuri FW: Louisville SSM SIP



### Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:38 PM 

### To: Kornylak, Vera S.; Huey, Joel 

### Subject: FW: Louisville SSM SIP



### From: Anderson, Lauren [mailto:Lauren.Anderson@louisvilleky.gov] 

### Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:37PM 

### To: Kemker, carol 

### Cc: Banister, Beverly; Gettle, Jeaneanne; Davis, Scott; Benjamin, Lynorae; Kornylak, Vera S.; cynthia.lee@louisvilleky.gov; Hamilton, Rachael; john.lyons@ky.gov; andrea.smith@ky.gov 

### Subject: RE: Louisville SSM SIP Carol et al.- thank you forthis clarification. We do understand thatyou can only propose, and Iapologize ifour letter led to any confusion. Thank you all foryourwork on our behalf. See you next week, Lauren Anderson Director Louisville MetroAir Pollution Control District 850 Barret Avenue Louisville, Kentucky 40204 (502) 574-6009


### From: Kemker, carol [mailto:Kemker.carol@epa.gov] 

### Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 1:42PM 

### To: Anderson, Lauren ,, 

### Cc: Banister, Beverly; Gettle, Jeaneanne; Davis, Scott; Benjamin, Lynorae; Kornylak, VeraS. 

### Subject: Louisville SSM SIP Lauren: Thank you foryour clarification letter regarding theJefferson County excess emissions rule. We wanted to also make one clarification. As you know, boththe proposed SIP-call, and EPA's forthcoming proposal to approveJefferson County's recent revisions to Regulation 1.07 mustgo through proper public notice and comment rulemaking processes. As a result, we cannot commit (and have notcommitted) to determinethe outcome ofeitherofthose two processes as this time. We indicated thatwe intend to propose approval ofJefferson County's revisions to Regulation 1.07; however, we need to letthe rulemaking processes move forward and afinal decision will come when we take final action, consistentwith that rulemaking process. Carol