alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013260EN.01002802.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/28

---

Action brought on 26 June 2013 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-361/13)

2013/C 260/51

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Schatz and A. Tokár, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by refusing to grant the allowance by reason of birth provided for by Law No 592/2006 to persons entitled to it who reside in a Member State other than the Slovak Republic, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by refusing to grant the allowance by reason of birth provided for by Law No 592/2006 to persons entitled to it who reside in a Member State other than the Slovak Republic, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45 and 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems.

1

| — | order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The allowance by reason of birth provided for by Law No 592/2006 is an old-age benefit within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004 which must also be granted to persons entitled to it who reside outside the Member State concerned (in the present case, the Slovak Republic). A provision of domestic law may not therefore limit the right to receive the allowance by reason of birth of those entitled to it who reside outside the Slovak Republic. The provision of the domestic law of the Slovak Republic which lays down such a limitation is therefore incompatible with Articles 45 and 48 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation No 883/2004.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14814]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-43-003]


Anadarko Gathering Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 29, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 18, 1998, Anadarko Gathering Company 
(Anadarko), filed a report to comply with Ordering Paragraph (E) and 
Appendix E of the Commission's September 10, 1997, Order Denying 
Petitions for Adjustment and Establishing Procedures for the Payment of 
Refunds issued in Docket No. RP97-369-000, et al. Anadarko states that 
its report shows the amounts received from producers (with principal 
and interest shown separately), and any producers who still owe 
refunds.
    Anadarko states that its May 18, report is subject to the 
reservations, conditions, limitations and qualifications set forth in 
Anadarko's Statements of Refunds Due, which have been previously filed 
with the Commission in the above-captioned docket. In addition, 
Anadarko notes that it recently filed with, the Kansas Corporation 
Commission (KCC), a petition addressing, inter alia, the nature and 
scope of Anadarko's obligation to pay refunds at issue in this 
proceeding, in light of the factual circumstance.
    A copy of this filing was submitted to the Commission and to all 
parties, for information purposes. Further, Anadarko intends shortly to 
file with KCC information regarding the potential distribution of 
refunds by the party or parties found to be responsible for payments of 
refunds.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14814 Filed 6-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### A. K. Strickland and Agnes Strickland, his wife, Ap*pellants,*vs. G. H. Vandenberg, *Appellee.*

144 So. 307.

Division A.

Decision filed November 3, 1932.

*E. Wright Taylor,*for Appellants;

*Fleming & Snoho, for*Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the Decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said Decree; it is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said *171Decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Buford, C.J. and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
RE: Final Toxics Rule Materials - Ready for OMB Clearance Higgins, Cortney to: RobertJ Wayland
03/16/2011 10:15 AM Cc: Bill Maxwell, Kevin Culligan, Peter Tsirigotis, Teresa Clemons

Chapter 9- 11apxEeconomicimpactstoxicsruleRIA3-16OMBclean.docx

Chapter5- 8mercuryHAPbenefitstoxicsruleR IA3-16OMBreviewclean.docx

Hi Bob, These two documents still contain tracked changes. Please scrub and send back to me. I've forwarded the other documents to OP for upload.

-----Original Message----- From: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:03 AM To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov; Culligan.Kevin@epamail.epa.gov; tsirigotis.peter@epa.gov; Clemons.Teresa@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Final Toxics Rule Materials - Ready for OMB Clearance Importance: High

Cortney -

Attached below are three (3) items: (1) Final preamble/reg text for the Toxics Rule; (2) Final RIA (in files </= 8.5 MB as requested) and, (3) the RIA ROCIS Table. Please let me know if there are any concerns with regard to clearing the materials asap.

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

*********************************************************DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

*********************************************************

Final Rule:

(See attached file: TheToxicsRule Proposal 031611a.doc)

(See attached file: Redline 031611 vs. 031611a.doc) Final RIA:

(See attached file: Chapters1-4ToxicsRuleRIA3-16clean.docx)

(See attached file: Chapter5-8mercuryHAPbenefitstoxicsruleRIA3-16OMBreviewclean.docx)

(See attached file: Chapter 9-11apxEeconomicimpactstoxicsruleRIA3-16OMBclean.docx)
Final ROCIS RIA Table:

(See attached file: ROCISproposedtoxicsrule3-14.xlsx)
# DLA Distribution Flag Raising for 1st Sgt. Larry Marcantel

/ Published Jan. 29, 2020
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
U.S. Army Soldiers assigned to the Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania flew a flag over Defense Distribution Center Susquehanna, formerly the New Cumberland Army Depot, in memory of Army 1st Sgt. Larry Marcantel, who recently passed away.

The flag was then passed to the Marcentel family along with a certificate of appreciation so that they can remember and celebrate the first sergeant’s accomplishments for many years to come.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tishawn Holloway, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 882]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obús, J.), rendered February 4, 2016, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Renwick, Gische, Oing and Singh, JJ.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 09289**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 09289\09289_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09289\09289_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 09289\09289_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 09289\09289_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09289\09289_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09289\09289_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09289\09289_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09289\09289_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09289\09289_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09289\09289_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09289\09289_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

09289\Certification Statement Plant ID 09289.pdf Plant certification statement 09289\Supplemental Documents\09289_MS_A5-2 Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09289\Supplemental Documents\09289_MS_A5-3 WB diagrams.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09289\Supplemental Documents\09289_MS_D3-1 Line diagrams.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09289\Supplemental Documents\09289_MS_F4-2 LTS.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09289\Supplemental Documents\09289_MS_F5-6_LANDFILL-1-2-3 GW monitoring wells.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09289\Supplemental Documents\09289_MS_F5-6_RET-LANDFILL-1 GW monitoring wells.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09289\Supplemental Documents\09289_MS_G3-1_QAQC.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09289\Supplemental Documents\09289_MS_G3-2_Aerial Photo Leachate sample locations.BMP Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09289\Supplemental Documents\09289_MS_G3-3_Sample locations line diagrams.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09289\09289_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
# DLA leaders renew commitment to preventing sexual assault with 2022 proclamation

/ Published April 12, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency leaders reaffirmed their commitment to preventing sexual assault by signing the 2022 Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month Proclamation (Common Access Card required to view) at the McNamara Headquarters Complex April 12. 

The document calls on employees throughout the agency to intervene when witnessing sexual harassment and assault. 

“It’s always the right time to do the right thing,” DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic said before signing the proclamation, which was also signed by DLA Senior Enlisted Leader Army Command Sgt. Maj. Tomeka O’Neal and DLA Vice Director Brad Bunn.  

Sexual assault affects survivors and their families, friends and coworkers. It also affects the agency’s ability to support warfighters. 

DLA’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program was created in 2016 to boost bystander intervention and incident reporting. 

“Although the outcomes have been positive, our primary prevention efforts must continue to advance to stop sexual violence before it occurs, and every member of DLA has a role to play,” the proclamation reads. “Knowing your part in preventing sexual assault is the first part of the solution, doing your part as an active bystander is the second.”

SAPR resources are available at the DLA SAPR website.
No. 10-5302.

#### KeOndra M. Chestang, Petitioner v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

562 U.S. 914, 131 S. Ct. 273,

178 L. Ed. 2d 180,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7140.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2151

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain lands to the State

of California, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, MAY 16), 1994

Mr. JOHNSTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain

lands to the State of California, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ward Valley Land

5 Transfer Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.

7 Not later than thirty days after the date of enactment

8 of this Act and subject to the terms and conditions de9 scribed in section 4, the Secretary of the Interior shall

10 convey by quitclaim deed to the Department of Health
2

S 2151 IS

1 Services of the State of California, all right, title, and in2 terest of the United States in and to the lands and im3 provements on the lands described in section 3.

4 SEC. 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The lands referred to in section

6 2 are located in San Bernardino County, California, com7 prising approximately 1,000 acres, as described in sub8 section (b).

9 (b) LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The lands identified in

10 subsection (a) are as follows:

11 San Bernardino Meridian, T. 9 N., R. 19 E.,

Sec. 26, SW 1⁄4 SW 1 12 ⁄4;

Sec. 27, S 1⁄2 S 1 13 ⁄2;

14 Sec. 34, all;

Sec. 35, W 1⁄2 W 1 15 ⁄2.

16 SEC. 4. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

17 (a) CONSIDERATION.—The conveyance described in

18 section 2 shall be in consideration of the fair market value

19 of the lands conveyed.

20 (b) DEPOSIT OF FUNDS.—Sums received pursuant to

21 subsection (a) will be available to the Secretary without

22 further appropriation for land acquisition purposes.

23 (c) RELEASE.—Upon transfer of the property de24 scribed in section 2, the State of California shall release
3

S 2151 IS

1 the United States from any liability for claims relating to

2 the property.

3 (d) REVERSION.—The conveyance described in sec4 tion 2 shall be a conveyance of fee simple title to the prop5 erty, subject to reversion to the United States if the prop6 erty is not licensed and used as a low-level radioactive

7 waste disposal facility or if payment is not made in accord8 ance with subsection (a).

Æ
No. 10-5017.

#### Terry W. Lewis, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 899, 131 S. Ct. 229,

178 L. Ed. 2d 152,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6070.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnny Traylor, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 46]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered April 30, 2014, as amended on May 21, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

Although defendant’s procedural challenges to his second violent felony offender adjudication are unpreserved, under the circumstances presented here, vacatur of the sentence in the interest of justice is warranted. In contrast to *People v Bouyea*(64 NY2d 1140 [1985]), here, defendant never admitted the prior felony conviction upon which his second violent felony adjudication was predicated, and the court never adjudicated defendant a second violent felony offender. Moreover, there is no record evidence that the predicate felony statement was filed prior to sentencing, as required by CPL 400.15 (2) *(see People v Camble,*17 AD3d 235 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 786, 790, 796 [2005]; *People v Chevere,*17 AD3d 193, 194 [1st Dept 2005]). Further, the record does not reflect that defendant was given a copy of the predicate felony statement, as *627CPL 400.15 (3) requires. Thus, the record is devoid of any indication that defendant received adequate notice that the prior felony conviction in question would be used as the basis for enhancement of his sentence or had an opportunity to be heard as to the validity of that conviction *(see People v Fields,*79 AD3d 1448 [3d Dept 2010]). The brief, incidental, logistical comments made by Supreme Court, the clerk and the prosecutor in defendant’s presence during the plea proceedings concerning the existence of a predicate felony statement are insufficient to constitute substantial compliance with CPL 400.15 requirements *(see Fields,*79 AD3d at 1449; *People v Anthony,*52 AD3d 864, 865 [3d Dept 2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 733 [2008]). Thus, remanding this matter for resentencing proceedings conducted in compliance with those requirements would not be “futile and pointless” *(Bouyea,*64 NY2d at 1142), but is warranted under the circumstances presented here *(see People v Camble,*17 AD3d at 236; *People v Chevere,*17 AD3d at 194; *People v Jenkins,*248 AD2d 486 [2d Dept 1998], *lv denied*91 NY2d 1008 [1998]; *People v Colon,*122 AD2d 150, 151 [2d Dept 1986], *lv denied*68 NY2d 999 [1986]).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Friedman, Mazzarelli, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
[50 NYS3d 75]

#### In the Matter of Wesley G. Wallen (Admitted as Wesley Gersham Wallen), an Attorney, Respondent. Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

March 28, 2017

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jorge Dopico, Chief*Attorney, *Attorney Grievance Committee,*New York City *(Norma I. Lopez*of counsel), for petitioner.

*236
      *Wesley G. Wallen,*respondent pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Wesley G. Wallen was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on August 10, 1992, under the name Wesley Gersham Wallen.* His last registered business address was in the First Judicial Department.

The Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) moves for an order under Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.10, accepting respondent’s resignation from the practice of law and striking his name from the roll of attorneys. Respondent’s affidavit of resignation, sworn to on January 19, 2017, complies with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 1240.10.

First, respondent states that his resignation is freely and voluntarily rendered, without coercion or duress by anyone, and with full awareness of its consequences *(see*22 NYCRR 1240.10 [a] [1]). Next, respondent acknowledges that he is the subject of an investigation by the Committee based on allegations of professional misconduct. Respondent specifically acknowledges that the investigation is based on his allegedly misappropriating client funds in connection with a real estate transaction and he states the client’s identity and the amount misappropriated *(see*22 NYCRR 1240.10 [b] [1]-[2]). Finally, respondent admits that he cannot successfully defend against the allegations under investigation by the Committee *(see*22 NYCRR 1240.10 [a] [2]).

The Committee agrees that respondent’s affidavit is compliant with the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters. Moreover, the Committee acknowledges that respondent has made restitution under Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) and represents that further restitution is unnecessary *(see*22 NYCRR 1240.10 [b] [3]). The Committee recommends that respondent’s resignation be accepted.

In light of respondent’s compliant affidavit and the Committee’s support, we accept respondent’s resignation.

Accordingly, the Committee’s motion should be granted, and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and *237counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective nunc pro tunc to January 19, 2017.

Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, nunc pro tunc to January 19, 2017.

He is also admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
No. 10-5360.

#### Harold Noel, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 917, 131 S. Ct. 283,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6893.

178 L. Ed. 2d 186,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 586.