alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019295EN.01004701.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/47

---

Action brought on 2 July 2019 — De Luca v Parliament

(Case T-422/19)

(2019/C 295/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Stefano De Luca (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola and N. De Luca, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
# C_2019280EN.01004301.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/43

---

Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Catasta v Parliament

(Case T-393/19)

(2019/C 280/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Anna Catasta (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
# C_2019348EN.01001701.xml

| 14.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/17

---

Action brought on 17 August 2019 – Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-566/19)

(2019/C 348/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 22 July 2019 which partially rejected the applicants’ request for an extension – until 5 September 2019 or until the end of August 2019 – of the deadline for submitting comments in the context of the formal investigation procedure in case SA. 39078 (2019/C) (ex 2014/N) – Financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 22 July 2019 which partially rejected the applicants’ request for an extension – until 5 September 2019 or until the end of August 2019 – of the deadline for submitting comments in the context of the formal investigation procedure in case SA. 39078 (2019/C) (ex 2014/N) – Financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project;

| — | 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 that the Commission violated its obligation to motivate its decision not to grant an extension of the deadline in question until 5 September 2019 or 31 August 2019, as the contested decision contains no reasoning supporting this rejection, or, in any case, entails insufficient reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its obligation to motivate its decision not to grant an extension of the deadline in question until 5 September 2019 or 31 August 2019, as the contested decision contains no reasoning supporting this rejection, or, in any case, entails insufficient reasoning.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 6(1) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) and thereby also the applicants’ right as interested parties to effectively participate in the formal investigation procedure regarding State aid case SA.39078, since the application was duly justified, well-founded and proportionate. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 6(1) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) and thereby also the applicants’ right as interested parties to effectively participate in the formal investigation procedure regarding State aid case SA.39078, since the application was duly justified, well-founded and proportionate.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 144 (Friday, July 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 41103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15804]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's Committee on Oversight hereby gives 
notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of 
National Science Board business as follows:

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, July 27, 2021, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National 
Science Foundation.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's 
opening remarks; Committee review and discussion of draft Merit Review 
Digest, Committee of Visitors (COV) summaries, and potential topics for 
NSB's Overview; discussion of goals and metrics that could help NSF and 
NSB assess progress in Broader Impact areas; and prepare for 
presentation by Dr. Shirley Malcom, Director of AAAS's SEA Change 
program, and former NSB member.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Ann Bushmiller, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81e0e3f4f2e9ece8edc1eff2e7afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5031322523383d393c103e23367e373f26">[email protected]</span></a>, 703/292-7000. To listen to this 
teleconference, members of the public must send an email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd939c899492939c918e9e9498939e989f8f99bd938e9bd39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e08e8194898f8e818c938389858e8385829284a08e9386ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a> at least 24 hours prior to the 
teleconference. The National Science Board Office will send requesters 
a toll-free dial-in number. Meeting information and updates may be 
found at the National Science Board website at www.nsf.gov/nsb.
    Authority: National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-15804 Filed 7-28-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Cindy Ann Ayrovainen, Also Known as Cindy Ann Lauder, Respondent, v Martin Michael Ayrovainen, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 187]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated April 1, 2011.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for the issuance of a corrected judgment in accordance herewith.

When a party alleges that a judgment does not accurately incorporate the provisions of a stipulation of settlement, the preferred remedy is to move in the trial court to resettle or vacate the judgment, rather than to appeal *(see Matter of Joseph J.L. [Claire H.*— Frank *L.],*69 AD3d 858 [2010]; *Charos v Charos,*3 AD3d 467 [2004]; *Matter of Gesvantner v Dominguez,*273 AD2d 383 [2000]). Nevertheless, this Court may address the issue and, upon examining the stipulation and the judgment appealed from in this matter, we and find that the latter does not conform to the former in several key respects including: the *923percentage of the college expenses of the parties’ children for which the defendant was responsible, the date upon which the defendant’s obligation to maintain the former marital residence would cease, under what conditions the defendant’s maintenance obligation would terminate, and the manner in which the parties would claim their youngest child as a tax exemption. In addition, the judgment conflicts with the stipulation with respect to the defendant’s responsibility to maintain a life insurance policy with the plaintiff as a beneficiary, whether the parties agreed that there would be a cost of living increase for the defendant’s child support obligation, and whether the defendant was to assist the plaintiff with a potential sale of certain real property located in Livingston Manor.

Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, to issue a corrected judgment which accurately reflects the terms of the parties’ stipulation entered on the record in open court on October 2, 2009 *(see Matter of Joseph J.L. [Claire H.*— Frank *L.],*69 AD3d 858 [2010]; *Page v Page,*31 AD3d 1172, 1173 [2006]; *Charos v Charos,*3 AD3d at 468; *Matter of Gesvantner v Dominguez,*273 AD2d 383 [2000]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 332 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 332

      Supporting the goals and ideals of American Education Week.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 17, 2011

     Mrs. Hagan (for herself and Mr. Kirk) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Supporting the goals and ideals of American Education Week.

Whereas the National Education Association has designated November 13 through 
        November 19, 2011, as the 90th annual observance of American Education 
        Week;
Whereas public schools are the backbone of the Nation's democracy, providing 
        young people with the tools they need to maintain the Nation's precious 
        values of freedom, civility, and equality;
Whereas by equipping young people in the United States with both practical 
        skills and broader intellectual abilities, public schools give them hope 
        for, and access to, a productive future;
Whereas people working in the field of public education, be they teachers, 
        principals, higher education faculty and staff, custodians, substitute 
        educators, bus drivers, clerical workers, food service professionals, 
        workers in skilled trades, health and student service workers, security 
        guards, technical employees, or librarians, work tirelessly to serve 
        children and communities throughout the Nation with care and 
        professionalism; and
Whereas public schools are community linchpins, bringing together adults, 
        children, educators, volunteers, business leaders, and elected officials 
        in a common enterprise: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of American Education 
        Week; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        National Education Week by reflecting on the positive impact of 
        all those who work together to educate children.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-74,642-09

IN RE MIKE MENDOZA, JR., Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 952290-E IN THE 262ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this

Court’s original jurisdiction. He contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in

the 262 District Court of Harris County, the District Court entered a timely order designating issues nd

on May 22, 2019, more than 180 days have passed since the date the State received the application,

and the application has not been properly forwarded to this Court as mandated by Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 73.4(b)(5).

Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris County, is ordered to file a response, which may be

made by submitting the record on such habeas corpus application, submitting proof of the date of

receipt by the State showing 180 days has not yet elapsed, or stating that Relator has not filed an
2

application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County. This motion for leave to file will be held. 

Respondent shall comply with this order within thirty days from the date of this order.

Filed: April 15, 2020

Do not publish
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 144 (Friday, July 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41031-41032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16258]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9057-6]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

Filed July 19, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through July 26, 2021 10 a.m. EST

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20210101, Final, NOAA, HI, Enhancing Protections for Hawaiian 
Spinner Dolphins to Prevent Disturbance, Review Period Ends: 08/30/
2021, Contact: Kevin Brindock 808-725-5146.

EIS No. 20210102, Draft Supplement, FERC, PA, Atlantic Coast Pipeline 
and Supply Header Project, Comment Period Ends: 09/13/2021, Contact: 
Office of External Affairs 866-208-3372.

EIS No. 20210103, Draft, FTA, CA, West Santa Ana Branch Transit 
Corridor Project Draft Environmental Impact

[[Page 41032]]

Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Comment Period Ends: 09/13/2021, 
Contact: Rusty Whisman 213-202-3956.

    Dated: July 26, 2021.
Candi Schaedle,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2021-16258 Filed 7-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### William P. Baez, Respondent, v Richard A. Hennessy, Jr., Individually and as District Attorney of Onondaga County, Appellant.

—Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, for reasons stated at Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.— disclosure.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
#### ZOLOTOROFE, Respondent, v. SACODER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Louis Zolotorofe against Joseph Sacoder.

PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with costs, unless the appellant perfect the appeal within 20 days and pay the respondent $10 costs. On compliance, motion to dismiss the appeal will be denied, and the case placed at the foot of the present calendar.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,521-01

EX PARTE JOSE ADOLPHO CASTILLO, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1301318 IN THE 228 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense of

capital murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life without parole. 

On April 6, 2018, an order designating issues was signed by the trial court. The habeas

record has been properly forwarded to this Court by the district clerk pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P.

73.4(b)(5). However, the record has been forwarded without the trial court having resolved the

designated issue(s) in this case. We remand this application to the 228 District Court of Harris th

County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiaryinvestigation and enterfindings of fact and
conclusions of law.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: December 11, 2019

Do not publish
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John White, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, La Mendola, J.—attempted burglary, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
# Euroopa Liidu C 188/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 188 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 65. aastakäik10. mai 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 188

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

65. aastakäik10. mai 2022

---

| Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- |
| | Parandused |
| | Kokkuvõte Euroopa Komisjoni otsustest, millega lubatakse kasutamiseks turule lasta ja/või kasutada aineid, mis on loetletud Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 1907/2006 (mis käsitleb kemikaalide registreerimist, hindamist, autoriseerimist ja piiramist) (REACH) XIV lisas (avaldatud vastavalt määruse (EÜ) nr 1907/2006 artikli 64 lõikele 9) (2022/C 131/05), parandus ( ELT C 131, 24.3.2022 ) | 1 |

Sisukord

Lehekülg

Parandused

Kokkuvõte Euroopa Komisjoni otsustest, millega lubatakse kasutamiseks turule lasta ja/või kasutada aineid, mis on loetletud Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 1907/2006 (mis käsitleb kemikaalide registreerimist, hindamist, autoriseerimist ja piiramist) (REACH) XIV lisas (avaldatud vastavalt määruse (EÜ) nr 1907/2006 artikli 64 lõikele 9) (2022/C 131/05), parandus ( ELT C 131, 24.3.2022 )

( ELT C 131, 24.3.2022 )

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

Parandused

| 10.5.2022 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 188/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 188/1

---

Kokkuvõte Euroopa Komisjoni otsustest, millega lubatakse kasutamiseks turule lasta ja/või kasutada aineid, mis on loetletud Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 1907/2006 (mis käsitleb kemikaalide registreerimist, hindamist, autoriseerimist ja piiramist) (REACH) XIV lisas (avaldatud vastavalt määruse (EÜ) nr 1907/2006 artikli 64 lõikele 9) (2022/C 131/05), parandus

(
  Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 131, 24. märts 2022
  )

(2022/C 188/01)

Leheküljel 5 tabeli teises veerus

Asendatakse

„27. märts 2022“

järgmisega:

„17. märts 2022“.

---