alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PLAINS
RESOURCES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE
30, 1997, AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX  MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,557
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,307
<PP&E>                                         531,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                 168,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 490,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          121,721
<BONDS>                                        261,929
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,657
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   490,347
<SALES>                                        395,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               395,724
<CGS>                                          358,449
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  369,713
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,891
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,905
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,762
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,143
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,143
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8979 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8979

    To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate 
              qualified immunity, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2020

   Mr. Hall introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate 
              qualified immunity, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Qualified Immunity Abolition Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

    Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 
U.S.C. 1983) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``It shall 
not be a defense or immunity to any action brought under this section 
that the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant 
believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful 
at the time when it was committed. Nor shall it be a defense or 
immunity that the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 
Constitution or laws were not clearly established at the time of their 
deprivation by the defendant, or that the state of the law was 
otherwise such that the defendant could not reasonably have been 
expected to know whether his or her conduct was lawful.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5941]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-67-005]


Mojave Pipeline Company; Notice of Report

March 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, in compliance with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order issued May 17, 1996 at 
Docket No. RP96-67-000, Mojave Pipeline Company (Mojave) tendered for 
filing a Hub Services Report for the first year of Hub operations.
    Mojave states that the Hub Services Report details its Hub services 
for the previous year provided under Rate Schedule APS-1. Mojave 
provided no authorized loan services under Rate Schedule ALS-1 during 
this period.
    Mojave states that copies of the filing were served upon all 
parties of record in this proceeding as well as all customers of Mojave 
and interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with 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. 97-5941 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2022109EN.01003301.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/33

---

Action brought on 20 January 2022 — Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses and Others v Commission

(Case T-34/22)

(2022/C 109/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi — Consortium des Charcutiers Corses (Borgo, France) and nine other applicants (represented by: T. de Haan and V. Le Meur-Baudry, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1879 of 26 October 2021 rejecting three applications for protection of a geographical indication in accordance with Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council ‘Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Coppa de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI); (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1879 of 26 October 2021 rejecting three applications for protection of a geographical indication in accordance with Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council ‘Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Lonzo de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI), ‘Coppa de l’Île de Beauté’ (PGI); (1)

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Articles 49, 50 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1) and, second, infringement of the general legal principle of the force of res judicata, in that the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it by that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Articles 49, 50 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1) and, second, infringement of the general legal principle of the force of res judicata, in that the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it by that regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012, in that the Commission erred in its application of the above provisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012, in that the Commission erred in its application of the above provisions.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 383, p. 1.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5072]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

FEDERAL REGISTER NUMBER: 97-0357.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE & TIME:

Tuesday, February 11, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.
MEETING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

    This meeting was rescheduled for Thursday, February 13, 1997, to 
convene following the open meeting.

Thursday, February 13, 1997

    The open and executive sessions were cancelled.

DATE & TIME: Tuesday, March 4, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, Sec. 438(b), and Title 
26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.

DATE & TIME: Thursday, March 6, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.
Lenora B. Fulani for President--Statement of Reasons (LRA #451).
Advisory Opinion 1996-46: Socialist Workers Party (``SWP'') and SWP 
National Campaign Committee by counsel, Michael Krinsky and Michael 
Ludwig.
Advisory Opinion 1997-02: Representatives David E. Skaggs and Ray 
LaHood by counsel, Jan Witold Baran and Robert F. Bauer.
Final Rules Implementing the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 219-4155.
Mary W. Dove,
Administrative Assistant.
[FR Doc. 97-5072 Filed 2-25-97; 3:02 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  DTRA Leadership             
  -  DTRA History             
  -  Mission             
  -  Strategic Initiatives             
  -  Foreign Malign Influence             
  -  Agency Overview Brief (pdf)             
  -  Agency Financial Report 
-  Careers & Opportunities    -  Your Civilian Career             
  -  Your Military Career             
  -  Welcome Aboard             
  -  Diversity and Inclusion 
-  Business    -  DTRA Contract Award Data             
  -  Office of Small Business             
  -  Mentor Protege Program 
-  News & Media    -  Press Center 
-  Contact Us		 
-  Joint Operations Center		 

# Foreign Malign Influence Fact Sheets

# Biological Threat Reduction Program BTRP 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Links

Biological Threat Reduction Program  BTRP 

Biological Threat Reduction Program  BTRP
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8812 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8812

   To amend subtitle A of title II of division A of the CARES Act to 
    provide a hardship waiver for certain overpayments of Pandemic 
                        Unemployment Assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 24, 2020

Ms. Herrera Beutler (for herself and Mrs. Murphy of Florida) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend subtitle A of title II of division A of the CARES Act to 
    provide a hardship waiver for certain overpayments of Pandemic 
                        Unemployment Assistance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Relief for Working Families Act of 
2020''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN OVERPAYMENTS OF PANDEMIC 
              UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 2102(d) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 
9021(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Waiver authority.--In the case of individuals who 
        have received amounts of Pandemic Unemployment Assistance to 
        which they were not entitled, the State shall require such 
        individuals to repay such amounts to the State agency, except 
        that the State agency shall waive such repayment if it 
        determines that--
                    ``(A) the payment of such Pandemic Unemployment 
                Assistance was without fault on the part of any such 
                individual; and
                    ``(B) such repayment would be contrary to equity 
                and good conscience.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the CARES Act (Public Law 
116-136).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         846,128
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,483,761
<ALLOWANCES>                                    87,000
<INVENTORY>                                 11,396,269
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,055,969
<PP&E>                                      29,208,803
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,532,320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,348,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,464,672
<BONDS>                                     25,940,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,368
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,868,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,348,030
<SALES>                                     79,903,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            80,010,048
<CGS>                                       67,989,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               67,989,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,998,968
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               123,480
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,502,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,518,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,485,080
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,033,595
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                    (211,651)
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,821,944
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
        

</TABLE>
#### IN RE: FLOPAM INC., Chemtall, Inc., Petitioners

2018-107

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Filed: 11/27/2017

James W. Dabney, Emma L. Baratta, Khue V. Hoang, Patrice Polyxene Jean, Ph.D., Richard M. Koehl, Stefanie M. Lo-*705patkin, Michael Martin Polka, Esq., Stephen S. Rabinowitz, Esq., Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioners

Robert Riddle, Reed Smith, Houston, TX, Scott D. Baker, Esq., Attorney, John Bovich, Attorney, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, James Christopher Martin, Attorney, Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Respondent

Before Prost, Chief Judge, Moore and O’Malley, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION

ORDER

O’Malley, Circuit Judge.

Flopam Inc. and Chemtall, Inc. petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas to dismiss this case for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Specifically, petitioners argue that the district court clearly abused its discretion in determining that their venue defense had been waived and that the Supreme Court’s decision in *TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1514, 197 L.Ed.2d 816 (2017) did not constitute an intervening change in law. Respondent BASF Corporation opposes. Petitioners reply. The petitioners also move to stay the district court proceedings pending consideration of the petition.

We recently held that the Supreme Court’s decision in *TC Heartland*effected a relevant change in law and, more particularly, that failure to present the venue objection earlier did not come within the waiver rule of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) and (h)(1). *In re Micron Tech., Inc.,*No. 17-138 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017). In light of that decision, we deem it the proper course here for petitioners to first move the district court for reconsideration of its order denying the motion to dismiss. We therefore deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. Any new petition for mandamus from the district court’s ruling on reconsideration will be considered on its own merits.

With respect to the- motion to stay, though we deny the motion as moot, we note that United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has noted that matters of venue should take “top priority in the handling of this case by the ... District Court.” *In re Horseshoe Entm’t,*337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The petition is denied.

(2) The motion to stay is denied as moot.
# C_2022237EN.01006201.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/62

---

Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-209/22)

(2022/C 237/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Shahla Makhlouf (Fairfax, Virginia, United States) (represented by: G. Karouni and K. Assogba, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,






  — | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant,

—

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I;

| — | Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II;

| — | order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 30 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 30 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss;

| — | under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Shahla Makhlouf requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Shahla Makhlouf requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-206/22, Makhlouf v Council.

---
# C_2021481EN.01003401.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/34

---

Action brought on 22 September 2021 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Heinze (K K WATER)

(Case T-610/21)

(2021/C 481/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arne-Patrik Heinze (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark K K WATER — Application for registration No 18 092 777

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2021 in Case R 2327/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s Second Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s Second Board of Appeal.

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.

---