alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013352EN.01002602.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/26

---

Action brought on 21 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-58/13)

2013/C 352/51

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Mansullo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the infringement alleged of the applicant’s right to confidentiality caused by the defendant’s sending a letter concerning his situation to a lawyer who did not represent him.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the request sent by the applicant to the Commission on 9 March 2012 and duly received by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the request sent by the applicant to the Commission on 9 March 2012 and duly received by the Commission;

| — | annul the note of 28 June 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the note of 28 June 2012;

| — | annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint against the decision rejecting the request of 9 March 2012, sent by the applicant to the Commission on 26 September 2012 and duly received by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint against the decision rejecting the request of 9 March 2012, sent by the applicant to the Commission on 26 September 2012 and duly received by the Commission;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the note of 1 February 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the note of 1 February 2013;

| — | order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000,00, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, and annual capitalisation, with effect from 9 March 2012 until actual payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000,00, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, and annual capitalisation, with effect from 9 March 2012 until actual payment;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
No. 10-289.

#### Alelaida Humala, et vir, Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 964, 131 S. Ct. 480,

178 L. Ed. 2d 291,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8106.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 259.
No. 09-525.

#### Janus Capital Group, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. First Derivative Traders.

562 U.S. 1055, 131 S. Ct. 631,

178 L. Ed. 2d 459,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9032.

November 23, 2010.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
# C_2014078EN.01000303.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2013 — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg

(Case C-687/13)

2014/C 78/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) valid?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bassam A., Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 580]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered April 21, 2015, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of assault in the first degree, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against *648the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s claim that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a “mixed claim” of ineffective assistance *(People v Maxwell,*89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]; *see People v Evans,*16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2 [2011]). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Williams,*136 AD3d 686, 686 [2016]; *People v Cruz,*127 AD3d 987, 988 [2015]). Since the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety *(see People v Freeman,*93 AD3d 805, 806 [2012]; *People v Maxwell,*89 AD3d at 1109; *People v Rohlehr,*87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]).

Hall, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23(b)



                    Consent of KPMG LLP, Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
EDO Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
002-69243-99, 033-1526, 033-28020 and 333-77865 on Form S-8 of EDO Corporation
of our reports dated February 15, 2000, relating to the consolidated statements
of earnings, shareholders' equity and cash flows and the related financial
statement schedule of EDO Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended
December 31, 1999, which reports appear in or are incorporated by reference into
the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of EDO Corporation.

Melville, New York                                                  /s/ KPMG LLP
March 15, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17550]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-236; RM-9186]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Point Arena, CA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel 296B1 to Point Arena, California, 
in response to a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Point 
Broadcasting, one of two applicants for Channel 272B1 at Point Arena, 
to resolve the mutual exclusivity, and to provide a second local FM 
service to that community. See 62 FR 65782, December 16, 1997. 
Petitioner is permitted to amend its pending application for Channel 
272B1 at Point Arena (File No. BPH-940223MC) to specify operation on 
Channel 296B1 while retaining its cut-off protection. Coordinates used 
for Channel 296B1 at Point Arena are 38-54-42 North Latitude and 123-
41-24 West Longitude. With this action, the proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 97-236, adopted June 17, 1998, and 
released June 26, 1998. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 reads as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under California, 
is amended by adding Channel 296B1 at Point Arena.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-17550 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
No. 10-5796.

#### Robert C. Cook, Petitioner v. Michigan Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1088, 131 S. Ct. 697,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9281.

178 L. Ed. 2d 527,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 938, 131 S. Ct. 395, 178 L. Ed. 2d 225, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7538.
No. 10-6500.

#### Steven Ehrlich, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 989, 131 S. Ct. 434,

178 L. Ed. 2d 337,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8240.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 879.
# Employee Spotlight: Colton Bert

/ Published April 25, 2024
RICHMOND, Va., 
*Employee Spotlight focuses on outstanding nonsupervisory Defense Logistics Agency personnel across DLA Aviation and at Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may nominate employees to be featured in this column by contacting DLA Aviation Public Affairs at*Avn.PAO@DLA.mil*.*

**Name:** Colton Bert

**Organization:** DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City

**Years of service at DLA:** Six years

**What is your job title, and what do you do specifically?** I’m a material support technician in the shop service center, located within the aircraft hangar. I use computer programs to adjust stock levels and analyze and research data to see what parts are needed. I primarily manage material that is used in the weapon systems for the Air Force’s B-1 Lancer, but I also manage materiel for the B-52 Stratofortress and the E-3 Sentry.

**How do you support the warfighter?**I give my support to the warfighter by making sure the SSC shelves are stocked with the materiel that the customers are ordering.

**What do you like most about your job?**I have to say my team is what I like most about my job. I have a really great group of individuals that I work with each day. We all get along great and work well with one another, and any of us can go to anyone within the team to get assistance.

**What part of your job gives you the most personal satisfaction?**Knowing that my efforts help get our planes up and running again is part of why I enjoy my job. I also like that there are both physical and analytical sides to my job, so I am not stuck in one spot every day.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?** I recently picked up the passion for bowling, after our team went to the bowling alley for a team-building event. I enjoyed it so much that I haven’t stopped playing!  I haven’t joined league yet, but I would like to do that one day.
No. 10-207.

#### Food Movers International, Inc., Petitioner v. Wells Dairy, Inc.

562 U.S. 962, 131 S. Ct. 472,

178 L. Ed. 2d 289,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7996.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 607 F.3d 515.
# C_2013344EN.01003803.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 29 July 2013 — Ilona Baradics and Others v QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited Magyarországi Fióktelepe, Magyar Állam

(Case C-430/13)

2013/C 344/67

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ilona Baradics, Adrienn Bóta, Éva Emberné Stál, Lászlóné György, Sándor Halász, Zita Harászi, Zsanett Hideg, Katalin Holtsuk, Gábor Jancsó, Mária Katona, Gergely Kezdi, Dr. László Korpás, Ferencné Kovács, Viola Kőrösi, Tamás Kuzsel, Attila Lajtai, Zsolt Lőrincz, Ákos Nagy, Attiláné Papp, Zsuzsanna Peller, Ágnes Petkovics, László Pongó, Zsolt Porpáczy, Zsuzsanna Rávai, László Román, Zsolt Schneck, Mihály Szabó, Péter Szabó, Zoltán Szalai, Erika Szemeréné Radó, Dr. Zsuzsanna Szigeti, Nikolett Szőke, Péter Tóth, Zsófia Várkonyi, Mónika Veres

Appellants:

Respondents: QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited Magyarországi Fióktelepe, Magyar Állam

Respondents:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Has the national legislature properly complied with Articles 7 and 9 of Directive 90/314/EEC, (1) that is to say, has it ensured effective protection for individuals in the event of insolvency on the part of travel organisers or retailers, in so far as it has made provision that the value of the financial security provided by the travel organiser or retailer is to be adjusted to a set percentage of anticipated net revenues from the sale of the tourist package or to a minimum amount? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the national legislature properly complied with Articles 7 and 9 of Directive 90/314/EEC, (1) that is to say, has it ensured effective protection for individuals in the event of insolvency on the part of travel organisers or retailers, in so far as it has made provision that the value of the financial security provided by the travel organiser or retailer is to be adjusted to a set percentage of anticipated net revenues from the sale of the tourist package or to a minimum amount?

1

| 2. | In so far as it may be found that there is an infringement on the part of the State, is that infringement sufficiently serious as to entail liability for damage? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In so far as it may be found that there is an infringement on the part of the State, is that infringement sufficiently serious as to entail liability for damage?

---

(1)  Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7329]

Announcement of a Meeting of the International Telecommunication 
Advisory Committee

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the International 
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) to prepare for the 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication 
Conference and the Radiocommunication Assembly.
    The ITAC will meet to begin preparation of advice for the U.S. 
government for the ITU World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC), which 
will be held in January 23-February 17, 2012 in Geneva, Switzerland. 
The Radiocommunication Assembly will be held in Geneva the preceding 
week, January 16-20, 2012.
    The ITAC will meet from 10 am to 12 pm on Wednesday, April 21, 2011 
at 1200 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209. This meeting is open to 
the public as seating capacity allows. The public will have an 
opportunity to provide comments at this meeting. Any requests for 
reasonable accommodation should be made at least 7 days before the 
meeting. All such requests will be considered, however, requests made 
after date might not be possible to fill. Those desiring further 
information may contact the Secretariat at jillsonad@state.gov 
mailto:jillsonad@state.gov or at 202 647-2592.

    Dated: March 25, 2011.
Cecily C. Holiday,
International Communications & Information Policy, U.S. Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2011-7766 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
```
# C_2015236EN.01003801.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)

(Case T-604/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark 101 - Earlier Community word mark 501 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 236/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Levi Strauss & Co. (New Castle, California, United States) (represented initially by: V. von Bomhard and J. Schmitt, and subsequently by: V. von Bomhard, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: L&O Hunting Group GmbH (Isny im Allgäu, Germany) (represented by: K. Kuck, K. Landes and G. Müllejans, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2013 (Case R 1538/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Levi Strauss & Co. and L&O Hunting Group GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 September 2013 (Case R 1538/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Levi Strauss & Co. and L&O Hunting Group GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 September 2013 (Case R 1538/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Levi Strauss & Co. and L&O Hunting Group GmbH;

| 2. | Orders OHIM and L&O Hunting Group GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Levi Strauss & Co. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM and L&O Hunting Group GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Levi Strauss & Co.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
# C_2013260EN.01004202.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/42

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 17 July 2013 — Borghezio v Parliament

(Case T-336/13 R)

(Interim relief - European Parliament - Measure excluding a Member of Parliament from his political group - Application to suspend enforcement - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility of the application - Lack of urgency)

2013/C 260/75

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mario Borghezio (Turin, Italy) (represented by: H. Laquay, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to suspend the enforcement of the measure of the European Parliament taken in the form of a declaration of its President at the plenary session of 10 June 2013, according to which, as from 3 June 2013, the applicant is to be regarded as a non-attached member and is thus excluded from the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ as from that date.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is rejected.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
No. 10-7259.

#### Glen Edward Rogers, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1149, 131 S. Ct. 929,

178 L. Ed. 2d 773,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 309.

January 10, 2011.

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

04/12/2016

812, 813 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 792
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2510 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2510

  To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to exclude certain bank 
               products from the definition of a deposit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 6 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

 Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mr. D'Amato) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to exclude certain bank 
               products from the definition of a deposit.

    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 ``Bank Insurance Fund and Depositor 
Protection Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF DEPOSIT.

    Section 3(l)(5) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
1813(l)(5)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) any liability of an insured depository 
                institution that arises under an annuity contract, the 
                income on which is tax deferred under section 72 of the 
                Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to any liability of an 
insured depository institution that arises under an annuity contract 
issued on or after October 6, 1994.
                                 <all>
```