alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014159EN.01002701.xml

| 26.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/27

---

Order of the General Court of 26 March 2014 — Adorisio and Others v Commission

(Case T-321/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid granted to banks during the crisis - Recapitalisation of SNS Reaal and SNS Bank - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Expropriation of holders of subordinated bonds - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No standing to bring proceedings - Manifestly inadmissible))

2014/C 159/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Stefania Adorisio (Rome, Italy) and the 363 other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to the order (represented by: F. Sciaudone, L. Dezzani, R. Sciaudone, S. Frazzani and D. Contini, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 1053 final of 22 February 2013 relating to State aid SA.35382 (2013/N) — Kingdom of the Netherlands — Rescue SNS Reaal 2013

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Ms Stefania Adorisio and the 363 other applicants listed in the Annex hereto shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Stefania Adorisio and the 363 other applicants listed in the Annex hereto shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.

1

---
UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania19103-2029



# iUN 017012Mr.DavidK.Paylor,DirectorVirginiaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality629EastMainStreetRichmond,Virginia23219DearMr.Paylor:TheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)receivedyourMarch16,2012requestforapprovalofrevisionstotheVirginiaStateImplementationPlan(SIP)whichamendsSIPapprovedRegulations9VAC5Chapter40,PartI,Article43(MunicipalSolidWasteLandfills)andChapter130,PartI(RegulationforOpenBurning).EPAhasdeterminedthattheseminorSIPrevisions,whichchangecross-referencestoVirginia’scurrentSolidWasteManagementRegulations(9VAC5-20-81)withoutanysubstantivechanges,complywithallapplicablerequirementsoftheCleanAirAct(CAA)andEPAregulationsconcerningsuchSIPrevisions.Duetotheiradministrativenature,theserevisionstotheVirginiaSIPundersection110(a)oftheCAAarebeingapprovedbythisletter.TheProjectOfficerforthisrulemakingisMr.HaroldA.Frankford,whocanbereachedat215-814-2108.Thisapprovaliseffectiveasofthedateofthisletter,DuetotheminornatureoftheseSIPrevisions,EPAhasconcludedthatconductinganotice-and-commentrulemakingtoapprovetheseSIPrevisionswouldbe“unnecessaryandcontrarytothepublicinterest,”andisnotrequiredbytheAdministrativeProceduresAct,5U.S.C.553(b).IamapprovingtheserevisionsconsistentwiththeproceduresoutlinedinEPA’sNoticeofProceduralChangesonSIPprocessingpublishedonJanuary19,1989at54FR2214andconsistentwiththeproceduresoutlinedintheApril6,2011memofromJanetMcCabe,DeputyAssistantAdministratorfortheOfficeofAirandRadiation,regardingRegionalConsistencyfortheAdministrativeRequirementsofStateImplementationPlanSubmittalsandtheUseof“LetterNotices.”ThisLetterNoticeapprovalisafinalEPAaction,andissubjecttojudicialreview.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasedonothesitatetocontactmeorhaveyourstaffcontactMrs.LauraMohollen,EPA’sVirginiaLiaison,at215-814-3295ormohollen.laura(epa.gov.Sincerely,--awnM.GarvinRegionalAdministratoK,‘Printedon100%recycled/recyclablepaperwith100%post-consumerfiberandprocesschlorinefree.CustomerServiceHotline:1-800-438-2474
#### Tribeca Lending Corporation, Respondent, v Gregory M. Bartlett, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[65 NYS3d 445]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered November 1, 2016, which denied defendant Gregory Bartlett’s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant may not relitigate issues resolved in prior appeals in this case *(see*121 AD3d 613 [1st Dept 2014]; 103 AD3d 516 [1st Dept 2013]; 84 AD3d 496 [1st Dept 2011]). Nor may he raise new arguments in this appeal, because he had a full and *520fair opportunity to raise them in the prior appeals, and he has made no showing of subsequent evidence or a change of law *(see Delgado v City of New York,*144 AD3d 46, 51 [1st Dept 2016]; *see also East N.Y. Sav. Bank v Sun Beam Enters.,*248 AD2d 245, 246 [1st Dept 1998]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, Singh and Moulton, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nelson Thompson, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 560]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated July 15, 2002 *(People v Thompson,*
      *767296 AD2d 513 [2002]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 6, 2000.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see *Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
jEo srq r ~

s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY o Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 2 ~

" 1 0

~ ~T qG PR0 1<

- ' 

### AUG - 4 2009

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION David Moody, Ph.D. Manager, Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 Dear Dr. Moody: On March 9, 2009 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of the Nondestructive Assay Box Counter (NABC), non-destructive assay (NDA) system for contact-handled (CH) transuranic (TRU) waste used by the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Savannah River Site (SRS). In the baseline inspection report (Docket no. A-98-49;11-A4-64), EPA identified the addition of a new NDA system as a Tier 1 change, which requires EPA approval prior to implementation. According to the requirements of 40 CFR 194.8 (b), DOE requested approval of the NABC for CH TRU waste as a Tier 1 change to the SRS-CCP CH baseline approval.
EPA conducted an on-site evaluation of the SRS-CCP NABC system on March 24-26, 2009. EPA's inspection of the NABC included an examination of the procedures, a review of the calibration records, a demonstration of the NABC, replicate measurements run at EPA's request, and an examination of Batch Data Reports for the NABC. EPA's inspection identified a concern that required a response related to the use of the NABC for the characterization of CH TRU waste. CBFO subsequently provided a revised calibration report that fully addressed the concern. EPA's inspection report for the NABC is enelosed and will be placed in the Agency's public dockct. EPA has detenmined that the NABC system used by SRS-CCP is adequate for the characterization of CH TRU waste at SRS-CCP. This approval does not make any changes to the tiering table provided with the baseline approval. Changes to the approved components of the NABC system at SRS-CCP must follow the tiering requirements*described in the baseline inspection report issued for the SRS-CCP CH TRU program.

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Basetl Inks on 100°/, Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycted PaperSincerely

Director iation Protection Division If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Ed Feltcoi

- n at (202) 343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462.

Enclosure

cc: Electronic Distribution Vernon Daub, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO Casey Gadbury, CBFO Courtland Fesmire, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Allison Pangle, CTAC Wayne Ledford, CTAC Steve Zappe, NMED Site Documents
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EASYRIDERS, INC. AND AS OF AND FOR THE NINE
MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         112,242
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,521,444
<ALLOWANCES>                                   445,442
<INVENTORY>                                  3,957,067
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,677,400
<PP&E>                                       8,538,599
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,318,709
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,276,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,598,327
<BONDS>                                      1,316,667
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,611
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,526,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,276,400
<SALES>                                     33,692,909
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,692,909
<CGS>                                       26,981,972
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,006,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,679,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,790,101)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,225
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,796,326)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,796,326)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.41)



</TABLE>
### Process Flow Chart

Receiving of Body

Raw Material

(Rejected Material Sent for Recycle)

Body Prep

Press

Glaze Line Kiln Selection Warehouse

Glaze Prep

Receiving of Glaze

Raw Material
No. 09-1322.

#### Karim Koubriti, Petitioner v. Richard Convertino.

562 U.S. 829, 131 S. Ct. 82,

178 L. Ed. 2d 27,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6479.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 593 F.3d 459.
# C_2015414EN.01002601.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — Trekstor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)

(Case T-636/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark MovieStation - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 414/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker and M. Alber, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: MSI Technology GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: T. Lieb, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2013 (Case R 1914/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between TrekStor Ltd and MSI Technology GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders TrekStor Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TrekStor Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

| 3. | Orders MSI Technology GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders MSI Technology GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

1

---
No. 10-6433.

#### Tonte Walker, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 988, 131 S. Ct. 430,

178 L. Ed. 2d 335,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8309.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 23

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our  report  dated  March 21,  2000,  included  in this Form  10-K,  into the
Company's  previously filed Amendment No. 3 to Form S-4  Registration  Statement
No.  333-25355  and  post-effective  Amendment  No.  4 on Form  S-2 to Form  S-1
Registration Statement No. 33-59279.



                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Vienna, VA
March 29, 2000
No. 10-5601.

#### Richard Randolph, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 506,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8566.

178 L. Ed. 2d 376,

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 590 F.3d 1273.
#### In the Matter of Pamela Brown-Winfield, Appellant, v Michael Bailey, Respondent.

[61 NYS3d 352]

Appeal by the petitioner from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Jane A. McGrady, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated November 19, 2014. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the petition seeking modification of a custody order of the Family Court, Kings County, on the ground that the Family Court, Queens County, was not the proper forum.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the petition.

On November 19, 2014, the petitioner filed a petition in the Family Court, Queens County, to modify an existing custody order that was issued in the Family Court, Kings County. The Family Court dismissed the modification petition on the ground that the Family Court, Queens County, was not the proper forum.

Family Court Act § 171 provides, in relevant part, that “a lawful order of the family court in any county may be enforced or modified in that county or in the family court in any other county in which the party affected by the order resides or is found” *(cf.*CPLR 503 [a]). In connection with the filing of the instant petition, the petitioner indicated that she lived at a specific address in Queens County. Thus, contrary to the Family Court’s determination, it was authorized to consider modification of the Kings County Family Court custody order *(see Matter of Winter v Karins,*96 AD3d 865, 866 [2012]; *Matter of Garner v Forsythe,*80 AD2d 712, 713 [1981]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the petitioner’s remaining contentions.

Accordingly, the order appealed from must be reversed, the petition reinstated, and the matter remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the petition.

*709Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Maltese and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1459

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CATHY G. LANIER; RANDY D. LANIER,

Defendants - Appellants,

and

TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:13-cv-01318-JFA)

Submitted: October 22, 2014 Decided: October 29, 2014

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cathy G. Lanier; Randy D. Lanier, Appellants Pro Se. Steven 

Barry Licata, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Randy and Cathy Lanier (collectively, “the Laniers”) 

appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of Branch Banking 

& Trust Company (“BB&T Co.”) and its order denying their Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. We affirm.

First, the Laniers challenge the district court’s 

jurisdiction over BB&T Co.’s action. We conclude that the 

district court correctly found complete diversity among the 

parties and, therefore, had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a) (2012). See United States ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 

555 F.3d 337, 348 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review); 

Hoschar v. Appalachian Power Co., 739 F.3d 163, 170-71 (4th Cir. 

2014) (discussing diversity jurisdiction with regard to 

corporations). Next, the Laniers suggest that the district 

court judge displayed bias towards them, but the record does not

support their claim. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 

573 (4th Cir. 2011) (providing standard). 

Finally, after a careful review of the record, we hold 

that the district court properly rejected the Laniers’ various 

attempts to show that the promissory note and the mortgages 

obligating them to BB&T Co. were invalid or unenforceable and to 

challenge the amount of damages awarded by the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court and its order denying reconsideration. We dispense with 
3

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16973]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3091]

State of Mississippi (and Contiguous Counties in Alabama)

    Lowndes and Perry Counties and the contiguous Counties of Clay, 
Forrest, George, Greene, Jones, Monroe, Noxubee, Oktibbeha, Stone, and 
Wayne in Mississippi, and Lamar and Pickens Counties in Alabama 
constitute a disaster area as a result of damages caused by severe 
storms and tornadoes that occurred on June 5 and 6, 1998. Applications 
for loans for physical damages may be filed until the close of business 
on August 17, 1998 and for economic injury until the close of business 
on March 16, 1999 at the address listed below or other locally 
announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 
2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308.
    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:                                                    
  Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere...............        7.000
  Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere............        3.500
  Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere...............        8.000
  Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit                
   Available Elsewhere.....................................        4.000
  Others (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit               
   Available Elsewhere.....................................        7.125
For Economic Injury:                                                    
  Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without                
   Credit Available Elsewhere..............................        4.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The numbers assigned to this disaster for physical damages are 
309112 for Mississippi and 309212 for Alabama. For economic injury the 
numbers are 988900 for Mississippi and 989000 for Alabama.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: June 16, 1998.
Aida Alvarez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-16973 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2497 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2497

  To extend the deadlines under the Federal Power Act applicable to a 
     hydroelectric project in Pennsylvania, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 4, (legislative day, September 12), 1994

  Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the deadlines under the Federal Power Act applicable to a 
     hydroelectric project in Pennsylvania, 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. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

    Nothwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in 
this Act as the ``Commission''), upon the request of the licensees for 
Commission Project No. 4474, is authorized, in accordance with the good 
faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of section 13 of 
the Federal Power Act and the Commission's procedures under such 
section, to extend until April 15, 2001, the time required for the 
licensee to commence construction of such project.
                                 <all>
```