alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023035EN.01002601.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Y v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam

(Case C-641/22)

(2023/C 35/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Gelderland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Y

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Amsterdam

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard:

| — | whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results?

| — | what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is? |
| --- | --- |

—

what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?

| — | to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate? |
| --- | --- |

—

to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?

| — | that the employer has guaranteed for the period 2014 to 2020 up to an amount of €250 000 000 in order to achieve the targeted pension accrual? |
| --- | --- |

—

that the employer has guaranteed for the period 2014 to 2020 up to an amount of €250 000 000 in order to achieve the targeted pension accrual?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 9423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-256-000]

Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

February 25, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 20, 1997, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective March 
22, 1997:

First Revised Sheet No. 227B
First Revised Third Revised Sheet No. 228
First Revised Second Revised Sheet No. 229

    WNG states that this filing is being made to modify Article 9.2, 
Scheduling, of the General Terms and Conditions of its tariff to 
provide a higher level of scheduling priority for secondary receipt or 
delivery points which are located on the same line segment as the 
primary receipt or delivery points under the shipper's service 
agreement. The proposed change would, of course, be applicable to both 
original capacity holders and released capacity holders.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all 
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a 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 proceedings. 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. 97-5106 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              92
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,648
<INVENTORY>                                     36,476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,935
<PP&E>                                          18,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,333
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           760
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,668
<SALES>                                         26,315
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,315
<CGS>                                           22,181
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,054
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (641)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,141)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,141)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered September 18, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01223-CV

MICHAEL MORFORD D/B/A NEMAHA WATER SERVICES, GEFFREY ARNOLD 

MCFALLS, INDIVIDUALLY D/B/A NEMAHA WATER SERVICES, NEMAHA 

WATER SERVICES, LP, NEMAHA WATER SERVICES GP, LLC, NEMAHA WATER 

SERVICES OK-1702, LLC, AND NEMAHA SERVICES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,

Appellants

V.

ESPOSITO SECURITIES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-05795

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion and judgment of this date, we VACATE the stay of 

arbitration proceedings before the American Arbitration Association granted in our order dated 

November 26, 2014 and ORDER that any further action in that proceeding is governed by our 

judgment in this appeal.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
 
                                                              
                                                               EXHIBIT 23.9 
 
                                 POCO OIL CO.
                            13105 HOLSTON HILLS DR.
                             HOUSTON, TEXAS 77069
                                 713/440-9225
 
ARTHUR L. BEAR
President
 
November 18, 1996
 
To the Board of Directors
Nuevo Energy Company
 
  We consent to the references to our firm under the heading "Experts" and
elsewhere in the Prospectus constituting a part of Nuevo Energy Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 15, 1996.
                                          
                                          By     /s/ 
                                                     Arthur L. Bear
                                             ______________________________
 
November 19, 1996
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8825 

To authorize the Maritime Administrator to use certain appropriated funds 

to purchase duplicate medals authorized under Merchant Mariners of 

World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2020, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2020 

Mr. GARAMENDI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the Maritime Administrator to use certain appropriated funds to purchase duplicate medals authorized 

under Merchant Mariners of World War II Congressional 

Gold Medal Act of 2020, 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. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE DUPLICATE 

4 MEDALS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation, 

6 acting through the Administrator, may use funds appro7 priated for the Maritime Administration to purchase du8 plicate medals authorized under the Merchant Mariners 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8825 IH

1 of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2020 

2 (Public Law 116–125) and provide such medals to eligible 

3 individuals who engaged in qualified service who submit 

4 an application under subsection (b) and were United 

5 States merchant mariners of World War II. 

6 (b) APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive a medal 

7 described in subsection (a), an eligible individual who en8 gaged in qualified service shall submit to the Adminis9 trator an application containing such information and as10 surances as the Administrator may require. 

11 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

12 (1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Adminis13 trator’’ means the Maritime Administrator. 

14 (2) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL WHO ENGAGED IN

15 QUALIFIED SERVICE.—The term ‘‘eligible individual 

16 who engaged in qualified service’’ means an indi17 vidual who, between December 7, 1941, and Decem18 ber 31, 1946— 

19 (A) was a member of the United States 

20 merchant marine, including the Army Trans21 port Service and the Navy Transport Service, 

22 serving as a crewmember of a vessel that was— 

23 (i) operated by the War Shipping Ad24 ministration, the Office of Defense TransVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:07 Dec 03, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8825.IH H8825

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8825 IH

1 portation, or an agent of such depart2 ments; 

3 (ii) operated in waters other than in4 land waters, the Great Lakes, and other 

5 lakes, bays, or harbors of the United 

6 States; 

7 (iii) under contract or charter to, or 

8 property of, the Government of the United 

9 States; and 

10 (iv) serving in the Armed Forces; and 

11 (B) while so serving, was licensed or other12 wise documented for service as a crewmember 

13 of such a vessel by an officer or employee of the 

14 United States authorized to license or document 

15 the person for such service. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Saul RIOS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50128 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 6, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr.,. Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Saul Rios, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Saul Rios has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rios has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42,2.

*

 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.
EX-10.5(a)



 Exhibit 10.5(a) 
 June 1, 2013 
 Drury Capital Inc. 
 c/o Drury Capital Services 
 47 Hulfish Street - Suite 340 

Princeton, NJ 08542 
 Attention:
Mr. Bernard Drury 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear
Mr. Drury: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below
(the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2014 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 CMF Drury Capital Master Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P. 


 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Damian George at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions
I can be reached at 212-296-1292. 
 Very truly yours, 
  

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Damian George
		 	  

		 	Damian George 
		 	Chief Financial Officer & Director


			
	
	DRURY CAPITAL INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Bernard Drury
		 	  



			
		
	Print Name:	 	 BERNARD DRURY



			
	DG/sr
#### IN RE: William Walter PLISE, Debtor, Tennille I. Plise, Appellant, v. Shelley D. Krohn, Chapter 7 Trustee; William Walter Plise, Appellees.

No. 15-60032

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 6, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed January 05, 2018

Louis Edward. Humphrey, III, Attorney, Humphrey Lopez PLLC, Reno, NY, for Appellant

Jacob L. Houmand, Esquire, Attorney, Houmand Law Firm, Ltd., Las Vegas, NV, for Appellee Shelley D. Krohn

Lenard Schwartzer, Attorney, Schwart-zer *&*McPherson Law Firm, Las Vegas, NV, for Appellee William Walter Plise

Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS,** Chief District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Raner C. Collins, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

*450MEMORANDUM ***

Tennille Plise, the former spouse of Debtor William Plise, appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit’s (BAP) affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the objection of Shelley Krohn, the Chapter 7 trustee for William Plise’s bankruptcy estate.

The BAP did not abuse its discretion by affirming the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining Krohn’s claim objection on the basis of judicial estoppel. *See Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,*270 F.3d 778, 782-83 (9th Cir. 2001). Plise held clearly inconsistent positions during the bankruptcy proceeding. The bankruptcy court accepted her prior position in the settlement agreement that $425,000 of the proceeds from the sale of the Austin property would go to unsecured creditors and release Plise from all remaining claims. Plise subsequently made a priority claim and argued that the $425,000 should go to her because she was an unsecured creditor. This change in position would provide her with an unfair advantage. *See id.*at 782. The BAP thus appropriately determined that Plise was judicially estopped from taking the current, inconsistent position that the $425,000 should go to her.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Manuel ORDAZ-FLORES Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 17-1665

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Filed: March 5, 2017

Submitted: February 20, 2018

Raul F. Guerra, Monzon Law, Lincoln, NE, for Petitioner

Victoria Marie Braga, Brendan Paul Hogan, Thomas W. Hussey, Carl H. McIntyre, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Manuel Ordaz-Flores, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision to deny his application for cancellation of removal on discretionary hardship grounds under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). After careful review, we conclude that the IJ used the proper standard in denying relief, and thus that Ordaz-Flores has not raised a cognizable challenge to the decision below. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial, see Gomez-Perez v. Holder, 569 F.3d 370, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2009), and we dismiss the petition.
**Good Neighbor Environmental Board**

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Federal Advisory Committee**  **Issues Report on Po**  **tential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy Development in the U.S.**  **- Mexico**  **Border Region** Washington, D.C., On December 14 , th e Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB , or Board ), will issue its 14 th annual report to the President entitled : The Potential Environmental and Economic Benefits of Renewable E

nergy Development in the U.S.
-Mexico Border Region. The Board is an independ ent federal advisory

committee that develops recommendations to the President on U.S.
- Mexico border environment and infrastructure issues
. The report will be accept ed on behalf of the President by Nancy Sutley , Chair of the White House Council on Environm ental Quality (CEQ) , at a public forum held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
. The r eport responds to the charge for the Board set by CEQ to p rovide responsible way s to take advantage of the abundant renewable energy resources in the border region while fostering sound economic development in the area. The report focuses on five sources of renewable energy : solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and h ydropower. Diane Austin, the Board ’s Chair, states “To facilitate the careful development of these resources, the Board supports an approach that identifies priority areas for potential energy development and emphasizes coordination of local, state, tribal, and federal partners. We hope that this report is useful to all U.S. government offic ials as we continue to think about how we can best achieve a healthier environment and a better qualit y of life for all of our citizens.” T he report recommends a number of specific actions the federal governm ent should initiate, including :  Careful plannin g and execution of projects and regional initiatives to ensure that any negative impacts are identified early and avoided to the greatest extent possible, and that any remaining unavoidable imp acts are minimized or mitigated;  Implementing energy efficiency projects and initiatives as a partial or complete alternative prior to, and in conjunction with, the developme nt or renewable energy projects;  Id entifying priority

areas for potential renewable energy development and emphasize coordination of local, state , tribal and federal governments to optimize local benefits while protecting the habitats, ecos ys tems, and the communities of the border region. The Board i s composed of representatives from federal government departments and agencies; state, local, and tribal governments in the border region; and community development, academic, health, environmental, and other non
- governmental organizations . T he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for managing the Board’s activities
. T he 14 th Report of the GNEB can be found online at http://www.epa.gov/ocempage/gneb/
. For further information, please contact Mark Joy ce , Designated Federal Officer for the Good Neighbor Environmental Board at 202
- 564
- 2130 , or joy ce.mark @epa.gov
.
# C_2021462EN.01005701.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/57

---

Action brought on 20 September 2021 — Kubara v EUIPO (good calories)

(Case T-602/21)

(2021/C 462/69)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Kubara sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: A. Suskiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark good calories — Application No 18 193 512

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 in Case R 2167/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the principle of legal certainty arising from the registration by EUIPO of the signs ‘Fit calories’ and ‘GREEN CALORIES’ as EU trade marks; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the principle of legal certainty arising from the registration by EUIPO of the signs ‘Fit calories’ and ‘GREEN CALORIES’ as EU trade marks;

| — | Failure on the part of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO to conduct a full analysis of the list of goods and services for which registration of the trade mark at issue was refused. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure on the part of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO to conduct a full analysis of the list of goods and services for which registration of the trade mark at issue was refused.

---