alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011063EN.01001201.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-276/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2006/118/EC - Protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2011/C 63/21

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and L. Jelinek, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Jirkalová, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, or to communicate within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 19)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.07.2010.

1

---
Madelyn HAINES, et al., petitioners, v. Arthur C. LANGE, et al.

No. 17-941.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# C_2011030EN.01003902.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/39

---

Order of the General Court of 24 November 2010 — Concord Power Nordal v Commission

(Case T-317/09) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Internal market in natural gas - Article 22 of Directive 2003/55/EC - Letter from the Commission requesting a regulatory authority to amend its decision regarding the grant of an exemption - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 30/71

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Concord Power Nordal GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. von Hammerstein, C.S. Schweer and C. Wünschmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, O. Beynet and B. Schima, agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: OPAL NEL Transport GmbH (Kassel, Germany) (represented by: U. Quack and O. Fleishchmann, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 12 June 2009 addressed to the Bundesnetzagentur (German Regulatory Authority) on the basis of Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | It is not necessary to rule on the requests for confidential treatment made by Concord Power Nordal GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

1.

It is not necessary to rule on the requests for confidential treatment made by Concord Power Nordal GmbH.

| 2. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed.

| 3. | Concord Power Nordal shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Concord Power Nordal shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | OPAL NEL Transport GmbH shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

OPAL NEL Transport GmbH shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 8 , 2019.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00524

- CV

IN RE MICHAEL REILLY AND RAVAGO AMERICAS D/B/A GENESIS POLYMERS , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018

- 47163



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 2, 2019 relator s Michael Reilly and Ravago Americas d/b/a Genesis Polymers filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this

c ourt to compel the Honorable Larry W eiman, presiding judge of the 80th District Court of Harris County
, to vacate his June 13, 2019 “Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act” (“the June 132 order”) and his June 25, 2019 “Trial Preparation Or der

. ” The petition argues that such orders violated the stay imposed by section 51.014(b) of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code

. Relators have appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss, which is pending
in our court as No. 14

- 19

- 00336 -CV (“the appeal”). Our court has issued an order in the appeal, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.3 , staying the June 13 order and the June 25 Trial Preparation Order. This order enforces the stay imposed by section 51.014(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code . We therefore dismiss relators’ petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Christopher, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
II-01226

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ford, Mildred Y. <mford@CFTC.gov>

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:27 AM

OTCDefinitions <OTCDefinitions@CFTC.gov>

FW: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

..... Original Message .....

From: Janene Bendrick [mailto:jbendrick@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:39 PM

To: dfadefinitions

Subject: Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Janene Bendrick

2 Abbey Lane

CAMP HILL, PA 17011
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16133]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2001 / 
Notices

[[Page 34141]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Federal Invention Available for Licensing and Intent to 
Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability and intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the malting barley variety 
designated ``Garnet'' is available for licensing and that the 
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to 
grant to Conagra Malting of Vancouver, Washington, an exclusive license 
to this variety in selected countries outside the United States where 
breeder's rights are available.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1158, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5257.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's intellectual 
property rights to this invention are assigned to the United States of 
America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the 
public interest to so license this invention as Conagra Malting has 
submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The 
prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply 
with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The 
prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within ninety (90) 
days from the date of this published Notice, Agricultural Research 
Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that 
the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements 
of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Michael D. Ruff,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-16133 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
Mike REDFORD, petitioner, GEORGIA.

No. 16-5946.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Waseem DAKER, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 15-9708.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
Robert Allen STANFORD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-1490.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: A. E. MOOERS CO., INC. AND FRANK H. TOTMAN, SR. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 190 

DATE: AUGUST 10, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 190 

Name: A. E. Mooers Co., Inc. 

Frank H. Totman, Sr. 

Effective On or about Aug. 10, 1972 

The respondents, and each of them, shall cease and desist from: 

(1) Engaging as futures commission merchant within the meaning of the 

Commodity Exchange Act without meeting the minimum financial requirements of the 

Act and the regulations thereunder; 

(2) Willfully making any material false or misleading statement in any report 

or application filed under the Commodity Exchange Act; 

(3) Willfully omitting to state any material fact in connection with any such 

application or report; 

(4) Willfully causing, aiding, counselling, commanding or inducing any person 

to engage in any act or practice from which the respondents are directed to 

cease and desist by this order. 

The period of the denial of trading privileges to the respondents, specified 

in the first paragraph of this order, shall become effective on the 30th day 

after the date of this order. The cease and desist provisions of this order, 

set forth in the second paragraph of this order, shall become effective on the 

date of service of this order upon the respondents. 

A copy of this decision and order shall be served upon each of the parties 

and on each contract market. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

AUG 3 1972 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
Mussa ALI, petitioner, v. CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON, et al.

No. 17-655.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2011232EN.01002901.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ReValue Immobilienberatung v OHIM (ReValue)

(Case T-487/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark ReValue - Application refused in part - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

(2011/C 232/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ReValue Immobilienberatung GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: initially, S. Fischoeder and M. Schork and, subsequently, S. Fischoeder (lawyers))

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2009 (Case R 531/2009-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ReValue as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ReValue Immobilienberatung GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ReValue Immobilienberatung GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

---
<PAGE>


Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
                                              COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<CAPTION>
                                                                           Three Months Ended            Six Months Ended
                                                                                June 30,                      June 30,
                                                                       -------------------------     -------------------------
                                                                          2000           1999           2000           1999
                                                                       ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
                                                                           (In thousands, except share and per share data)
<S>                                                                    <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Average common shares outstanding                                       6,072,588      6,581,451      6,106,169      6,533,643

Average common stock equivalents of
   warrants and options outstanding -
   based on the treasury stock method
   using market price                                                      21,673         44,313         31,932         86,482
                                                                       ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

Average diluted common shares outstanding                               6,094,261      6,625,764      6,138,101      6,653,125
                                                                       ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

Net income                                                             $    1,586     $    1,345     $    3,221     $    2,347

Basic earnings per common share                                              0.26           0.20           0.53           0.36

Diluted earnings per common share                                            0.26           0.20           0.52           0.35
</TABLE>
Gregory LUTZ, et al., petitioners, v. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES, INC., et al.

No. 15-1453.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Social Security Administration

# AGENCY:

Social Security Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Social Security Administration is announcing that the attorney-fee assessment rate under section 206(d) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 406(d), for 2001 is 6.3 percent. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        John Watson, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Phone: (410) 965-3137, email:                         *John.Watson@ssa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 406 of Public Law No. 106-170, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, established an assessment for the services required to determine and certify payments to attorneys from the benefits due claimants under Title II of the Social Security Act. This provision is codified in section 206 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 406). The legislation set the assessment for the calendar year 2000 at 6.3 percent of the amount that would be required to be certified for direct payment to the attorney under either section 206(a)(4) or 206(b)(1) before the application of the assessment. For subsequent years, the legislation requires the Commissioner of Social Security to determine the percentage rate necessary to achieve full recovery of the costs of determining and certifying fees to attorneys, but not in excess of 6.3 percent. 

The Commissioner of Social Security has determined, based on available data, that the current rate of 6.3 percent will continue. We based our decision to continue the 6.3 percent assessment rate on work sampling and management information data for performing these functions. We are continuing to review our data to determine if a change is appropriate subsequently. 

Dated: January 16, 2001.

Yvette S. Jackson, 

Deputy Commissioner for Finance, Assessment and Management. 

[FR Doc. 01-1608 Filed 1-18-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191-02-U
II-00239

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mallika Henry <mallikahenry@mac.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 12:07 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Mallika Henry

18 Broad St.

Cambridge, NY 12816
Bonifacio GOROSTIETA-CASAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5988.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

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