alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023286EN.01000801.xml

| 14.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej v C. sp. z o.o., in liquidation

(Case C-108/22, (1) Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (VAT — Hotel services consolidator))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for travel agents - Scope - Consolidator of accommodation services which purchases such services on its own behalf and resells them to other professionals without ancillary services)

(2023/C 286/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Defendant: C. sp. z o.o., in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that the service provided by a taxable person, which consists in purchasing accommodation services from other taxable persons and reselling them to other economic operators, is covered by the special value added tax scheme applicable to travel agents, even though those services are not accompanied by ancillary services.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 25.7.2022.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          30,659
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,495
<INVENTORY>                                     80,284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               277,006
<PP&E>                                         414,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                 210,851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 717,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,933
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        32,824
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     239,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   717,023
<SALES>                                      1,035,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,045,464
<CGS>                                          563,704
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  718,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               286,667
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,523
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,050
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                  14,489
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,139
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2


 


Description of the $850 million Fifth Amended
and Restated

Revolving Credit Agreement Extension


 


June 29, 2021


 


Pursuant to the terms of the $850 million Fifth Amended and Restated
Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of June 5, 2018, among Consumers Energy Company, the financial institutions named therein and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A., as Agent, the parties have all agreed, effective June 30, 2021, to extend the Termination Date (as defined therein)
for a period of one year to June 5, 2024.
No. 11-10480.

#### Trivedi *v.*Internal Revenue Service.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 12.01**

 

**PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO ANDSUBSIDIARIES**

**STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF**

**RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

**(Thousands of Dollars)**

 
| ** **                                                            | ** ** | **Year ended Dec. 31,** | ** ** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                            | ** ** | **2007**                               | ** ** | **2006** | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** |
| Earnings as defined:                                                  |       |                                   |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Pretax income from continuing operations                              |       | $                                      | 431,251    |   | $ | 323,159 |   | $ | 281,657 |   | $ | 290,861 |   | $ | 316,144 |   |
| Add: Fixed charges                                                    |       | 311,377                                |       | 264,672 |   | 263,516 |   | 266,231 |   | 270,051 |   |
| Earnings as defined                                                   |       | $                                      | 742,628    |   | $ | 587,831 |   | $ | 545,173 |   | $ | 557,092 |   | $ | 586,195 |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                        |       |                                   |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest charges                                                      |       | $                                      | 180,230    |   | $ | 137,493 |   | $ | 144,835 |   | $ | 157,447 |   | $ | 160,914 |   |
| Interest charges on life insurance policy  borrowings                 |       | 105,396                                |       | 117,536 |   | 107,610 |   | 98,094 |   | 89,351 |   |
| Interest component of leases                                          |       | 25,751                                 |       | 9,643 |   | 11,071 |   | 10,690 |   | 12,414 |   |
| Distributions on redeemable preferred  securities of subsidiary trust |       | —                                 |       | — |   | — |   | — |   | 7,372 |   |
| Total fixed charges                                                   |       | $                                      | 311,377    |   | $ | 264,672 |   | $ | 263,516 |   | $ | 266,231 |   | $ | 270,051 |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                    |       | 2.4                                    |       | 2.2 |   | 2.1 |   | 2.1 |   | 2.2 |   |

 

----
# Accreditation

- Accreditation: Postsecondary Education Institutions Look up a school to see whether it's accredited, and learn more about the Department's process for recognizing accrediting agencies. Schools must be approved by Department-recognized accrediting agencies to provide Federal Student Aid to their students.
- U.S. Department of Education Announces Recognition Status of Nine Accrediting Agencies Yesterday,  the U.S. Department of Education’s Senior Department Official (SDO) informed nine accreditors about the status of their recognition. The following agencies were approved for renewal of recognition for five years:
- Statement from the U.S. Department of Education on the Status of Recognition of Nine Accrediting Agencies and Withdrawal of Recognition of the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools "Today the Department of Education's (ED) Senior Department Official (SDO) informed nine accreditors about the status of their recognition. The following agencies were approved for renewal of recognition for five years:
- Termination of the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools as an ED Recognized Accrediting Agency On August 19, 2022, the Deputy Secretary of Education, as delegated by the Secretary, issued a final decision on the appeal of the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) regarding its status as a recognized accrediting agency by the U.S. Department of Education.
# C_2022318EN.01003001.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/30

---

Action brought on 3 June 2022 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-360/22)

(2022/C 318/42)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by approving and maintaining in force Articles 85(1)(b) and 87(2)(f) of the Pensioenwet (Law on Pensions), read in conjunction with Article 19b(2) of the Wet op de loonbelasting (Law on Wages Tax), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45, 56 and 63 TFEU and Articles 28, 36 and 40 EEA; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by approving and maintaining in force Articles 85(1)(b) and 87(2)(f) of the Pensioenwet (Law on Pensions), read in conjunction with Article 19b(2) of the Wet op de loonbelasting (Law on Wages Tax), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45, 56 and 63 TFEU and Articles 28, 36 and 40 EEA;

| — | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the opinion that the Netherlands legislation concerning the transfer of pension capital accumulated in the so-called ‘second pillar’, the supplementary pension accumulation via the employer, is incompatible with the free of movement of workers, services and capital, since in a cross-border situation an outgoing transfer of pension capital without being taxed is possible only if the possibilities of redeeming the pension as a capital sum are the same as, or more limited than, in the Netherlands. In a number of Member States, pensions can be wholly or partially redeemed in the form of a lump-sum payment whereby mobile workers transferring their pension capital to one of those Member States are taxed. Similar transfers of pension capital within the Netherlands are not taxed.

---
<PAGE>
Exhibit 21                  PGI INCORPORATED                         Page 1 of 1
----------                  ----------------
                              SUBSIDIARIES
                              ------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    State of                Relationship
                                    --------                ------------
                                    Incorporation
                                    -------------
<S>                                 <C>                     <C>
Sugarmill Woods, Inc.               Florida                   Wholly owned<F1>
Sugarmill Woods Management, Inc.    Florida                   Wholly owned<F1>
Deep Creek Utilities, Inc.          Florida                   Wholly owned<F1>
Southern Woods, Incorporated        Florida                   Wholly owned by 
                                                            Sugarmill Woods, Inc.
Burnt Store Marina, Inc.            Florida                   Wholly owned<F1>
Punta Gorda Isles Sales, Inc.       Florida                   Wholly owned<F1>
Burnt Store Utilities, Inc.         Florida                   Wholly owned<F1>
Gulf Coast Credit Corporation       Florida                   Wholly owned<F1>
Sugarmill Woods Sales, Inc.         Florida                   Wholly owned by
                                                            Sugarmill Woods, Inc.
Sugarmill Construction, Inc.        Florida                   Wholly owned by
                                                            Sugarmill Woods, Inc.

<FN>
------------
<F1> Included in the Company's consolidated financial statements.
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

CONTINUING ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Tetra Technologies, Inc. v. David Alleman and Alleman 

Consulting, LLC

Appellate case number: 01-19-00049-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-66742

Trial court: 268th District Court of Harris County

On June 13, 2019, appellees, David Alleman and Alleman Consulting, LLC 

(collectively “appellees”), filed a motion “to abate this appeal pending a trial court 

determination as to whether this case had been rendered moot by a binding compromise 

settlement agreement.” See Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656, 658–59 

(Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (explaining if settlement dispute arises while underlying 

action is on appeal party seeking enforcement must file separate breach of contract action

and appeal should be abated); Tony’s Barbeque and Steakhouse, Inc. v. Three Points Invs., 

Inc., 527 S.W.3d 686, 689 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (“If the 

settlement dispute does not arise until the cause is on appeal, then claims for the breach or 

enforcement of the settlement agreement must be filed as a separate cause and the appeal 

abated pending resolution of the settlement-agreement dispute.”). We granted appellees’ 

motion and requested that appellees, no later than September 30, 2019, file a report 

advising the Court of the status of any trial court proceedings.

On September 11, 2019, appellees filed a “Status Report” advising the Court that 

they had filed suit against appellant “seeking enforcement of” the parties’ purported 

post-judgment settlement agreement. See Mantas, 925 S.W.2d at 658–59; Tony’s 

Barbeque, 527 S.W.3d at 689.

We direct appellees, no later than 60 days from the date of this order, to file 

another report advising the Court of the status of any trial court proceedings. If appellees

do not respond as directed, the case may be reinstated on the Court’s active docket and the 

appeal may proceed under the applicable Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The appeal remains abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Julie Countiss______

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __November 26, 2019___
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2013-N-1529, FDA-2014-D-0609, FDA-2012-N-0961, FDA-2021-N-1022, FDA-2018-N-4130, and FDA-2018-N-3037]
 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, 
                        *PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at 
                    *https://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*
                     An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
                    ( print page 20433) Table 1—List of Information Collections Approved by OMB
Title of collection
OMB control No.
Date approval expiresReclassification Petitions for Medical Devices
0910-0138
2/28/2025Pharmaceutical Distribution Supply Chain
0910-0806
2/28/2025Environmental Impact Considerations
0910-0322
3/31/2025Reporting Associated with Food Additive Petitions, Investigational Food Additive Files Exemptions, and Declaration of Color Additives on Animal Food Labels
0910-0546
3/31/2025Recordkeeping Requirements for Microbiological Testing and Corrective Measures for Bottled Water
0910-0658
3/31/2025Generic Clearance for Quantitative Testing for the Development of FDA Communications (CFSAN)
0910-0865
3/31/2025
 Dated: March 30, 2022. Lauren K. Roth, Associate Commissioner for Policy.


[FR Doc. 2022-07394 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
#### Audrey Ivy GRANT, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 17-60267 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 6, 2018

Brian Keith Bates, Esq., Reina & Bates Immigration & Nationality Lawyers, Houston, TX, for Petitioner

Lindsay M. Corliss, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Audrey Ivy Grant, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions this court for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from a denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of her request for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B). She contends that the agency wrongly found her to be not credible on matters relating to her place of birth, her entry into the United States, her Texas conviction for securing a document by deception, and her children’s attempts to contact her estranged husband. Grant argues that her testimony was plausible; that she explained any discrepancies; that the differences in the testimony and evidence were minor; and that she should not be penalized for repeating a story about her place of birth, which she could not have known personally. Although the IJ also denied Grant’s application for cancellation of removal, she concedes that she did not challenge that ruling before the BIA and thus did not exhaust remedies. *See Omari v. Holder,*562 F.3d 314, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2009).

The jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)© provide that "no court shall have jurisdiction to review” the Attorney General’s discretionary decision to deny § 1182(h) relief. *See Cabral v. Holder,*632 F.3d 886, 889 (5th Cir. 2011); *Martinez v. Mukasey,*519 F.3d 532, 541 (5th Cir. 2008). Despite this, we may consider legal or constitutional challenges to the denial of relief. § 1252(a)(2)(D); *Martinez,*519 F.3d at 541. This principle does not provide Grant any succor because her challenge to the BIA’s denial of relief raises factual questions. *See Orellana-Monson v. Holder,*685 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Grant’s petition for review, and it is DISMISSED.

*

 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID LESLIE BARKSDALE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 103 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of September, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### Joseph CLIG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. WETTLANFER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35395

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 23, 2018

Joseph Clig, Pro Se

Denise Gale Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Joña J. Maukonen, Esquire, Attorney, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Clig, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Clig failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating Clig’s clubfoot condition or staph infection. *See id.*at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference in medical opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clig’s motion to appoint counsel because Clig failed to show exceptional circumstances. *See Palmer v. Valdez,*560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clig’s motion to compel discovery because Clig failed to set forth particular facts that he expected to uncover through discovery. *See Hatch v. Reliance Ins.,*758 F.2d 409, 416 (9th Cir. 1985) (setting forth standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clig’s motion seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) because Clig failed to demonstrate that the discovery he requested would preclude summary judgment. *See Getz v. Boeing Co.,*654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a plaintiff must show that the discovery sought would have precluded summary judgment).'

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10878-10879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6060]


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

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting; March 11, 1997 Board of Directors Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, March 11, 1997, 1:00 p.m. (OPEN Portion) 1:30 
p.m. (CLOSED Portion).

PLACE: Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 
York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Meeting OPEN to the Public from 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Closed 
portion will commence at 1:30 p.m. (approx.)

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. President's Report
2. New Appointment
3. Approval of December 10, 1996 Minutes (Open Portion)
4. Meeting schedule through December, 1997

FURTHER MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: (Closed to the Public 1:30 p.m.).

1. Finance Project in Russia
2. Insurance Project in Bangladesh
3. Pending Major Projects
    Finance Project in Venezuela
4. Approval of December 10, 1996 Minutes (Closed Portion)

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Information on the meeting may be 
obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.


[[Page 10879]]


    Dated: February 25, 1997.
Connie M. Downs,
OPIC Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6060 Filed 3-6-97; 2:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-M