alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE         

No 90/2004

of 8 June 2004         

amending Protocol 30 to the EEA Agreement, on specific provisions on the organisation of cooperation in the field of statistics and Protocol 31 to the Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in the indent of Article 3(7)(c) (Regulation (EC) No 1382/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Protocol 31 to the Agreement:

                  ‘, as amended by:

Article 2

Protocol 31 to the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

Article 3

1.   Protocol 31 to the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

2.   Protocol 30 to the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

the following shall be added in the second indent of paragraph 7 (Decision No 2367/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter II (Statistical programme 2003 to 2007):

                     ‘, as amended by:

Article 4

This Decision shall enter into force on the first day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement (*1).

It shall apply from 1 May 2004.

Article 5

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 June 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

S. GILLESPIE            

----

(1)OJ L 41, 12.2.2004, p. 64.

(2)OJ L 277, 26.8.2004, p. 182.

(3)OJ L 138, 30.4.2004, p. 17.

(4)OJ L 138, 30.4.2004, p. 7.

(5)OJ L 138, 30.4.2004, p. 12.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

----
II-00252

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Gary Killpack <gmkillpack@wcn.net>

Friday, December 3, 2010 8:35 AM

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.

Gary Killpack

1850 se 23rd

lincoln city, OR 97367
John GASSEW, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6546.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2011232EN.01002301.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Andrea Schwab

(Case C-547/09) (1)

(2011/C 232/36)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

---
# C_2012032EN.01001902.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Meica v OHIM — Bösinger Fleischwaren (Schinken King)

(Case T-61/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Schinken King - Earlier national word mark King - Earlier national and Community word marks Curry King - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

2012/C 32/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Meica Ammerländisch Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (Edewecht, Germany) (represented by: S. Russlies, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bösinger Fleischwaren GmbH (Bösingen, Germany)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1049/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländisch Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and Bösinger Fleischwaren GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1049/2007-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1049/2007-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Meica Ammerländisch Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Meica Ammerländisch Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.

1

---
**Exhibit31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

**ChiefFinancial Officer Certification**

 

I, Richard J.Kaplan, certify that:

 

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-K of DeCrane Holdings Co.;

 

2.                                       Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 
| Date:  October 9, 2003 |                         |
|------------------------|------------------------------|
|                   |                         |
|                   |                         |
|                   | /s/  RICHARD J. KAPLAN  |
|                   | Richard J.  Kaplan           |
|                   | Chief  Financial Officer and |
|                   | Assistant  Secretary         |

 

----
# C_2009180EN.01006402.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/64

---

Action brought on 20 May 2009 — J v Commission

(Case F-53/09)

2009/C 180/119

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: J (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim that the disease from which she is suffering should be recognised as an occupational disease, and of the decision to charge her for the fees and costs of the doctor which she designated and 50 % of the fees and incidental costs of the third doctor on the medical committee.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s claim that the disease from which she is suffering and which prevents her from carrying out her duties should be recognised as an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s claim that the disease from which she is suffering and which prevents her from carrying out her duties should be recognised as an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul the Commission’s decision to charge her for the fees and costs of the doctor which she designated and for 50 % of the fees and incidental costs of the third doctor on the medical committee; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision to charge her for the fees and costs of the doctor which she designated and for 50 % of the fees and incidental costs of the third doctor on the medical committee;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant a symbolic sum of EUR one to compensate for the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant a symbolic sum of EUR one to compensate for the non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
Nicolas P. JUSZCZYK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9240.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15974]



[[Page 33942]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-1437; MM Docket No. 01-79; RM-10088]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Lordsburg and Deming, NM

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

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

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a petition filed on behalf of Runnels 
Broadcasting System, LLC, licensee of Station KQTN, Lordsburg, New 
Mexico, proposing the reallotment of Channel 250C to Deming, New 
Mexico, and modification of its authorization accordingly, pursuant to 
the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. 
Petitioner withdrew its interest in pursuing the proposal. See 66 FR 
17843, April 4, 2001.

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. 01-79, adopted June 6, 2001 , and 
released June 15, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth 
Street, SW., 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.

Federal Communications Commission
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-15974 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,314,495
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         426,311
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,125,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,199,625
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         949,250
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           913,791
<LOANS>                                     50,040,573
<ALLOWANCE>                                    308,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              59,738,638
<DEPOSITS>                                  42,390,618
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            267,531
<LONG-TERM>                                 11,940,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       232,583
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,907,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              59,738,638
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,093,317
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               52,203
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                34,251
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,179,771
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             471,244
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             632,650
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          547,121
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   17,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                425,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                170,368
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     170,368
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   112,518
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.05
<LOANS-NON>                                    438,210
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               295,457
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,773
<RECOVERIES>                                       533
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              308,217
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           308,217
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         151,082
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               226,375
<PP&E>                                       7,573,228
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,092,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,706,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          201,308
<BONDS>                                      3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,505,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,706,814
<SALES>                                        902,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               969,131
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  714,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             186,687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,618
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             67,618
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    67,618
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.28
        

</TABLE>
Lee A. HAWKINS, petitioner, v. Mark HOOKS, Warden.

No. 17-7351.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
**Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 – Rintisch v OHIM – Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)**

**(Case T-62/09)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark PROTI SNACK – Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER – Late submission of documents – Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Concept of a provision to the contrary – Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division of the Office – Examination by Board of Appeal – Scope – Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the prescribed time-limit – Account taken – Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Arts 20(1)
and 50(1)) (see paras 30-32, 36-41)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2008 (Case R 740/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs. |
----

|   | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Oconee Financial Corporation (the “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ B. Amrey HardenB. Amrey HardenPresident and Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# C_2009082EN.01001601.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 January 2009 — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Paolo Speranza

(Case C-35/09)

(2009/C 82/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Appellants:

Respondent: Paolo Speranza

Respondent:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335/EEC (1), which provides that an increase in the capital of a capital company by contribution of assets of any kind is to be subject to capital duty, to be interpreted as meaning that an actual contribution is to be taxable, but not a mere decision to increase the share capital which remains essentially unimplemented? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335/EEC (1), which provides that an increase in the capital of a capital company by contribution of assets of any kind is to be subject to capital duty, to be interpreted as meaning that an actual contribution is to be taxable, but not a mere decision to increase the share capital which remains essentially unimplemented?

1

| 2. | Is Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the duty must be levied exclusively on the company to which the capital is contributed and not also on the public official who drafts or certifies the transaction? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the duty must be levied exclusively on the company to which the capital is contributed and not also on the public official who drafts or certifies the transaction?

| 3. | In any event, are the means of defence afforded to that public official by the Italian legislation consistent with the principle of proportionality, in light of the fact that, under Article 38 of Decree No 131/1986 of the President of the Republic, it is irrelevant whether the resolution to increase share capital is null and void or may be annulled, and repayment of the duty paid may be effected only after a civil judgment declaring the transaction null and void or annulling it has become final? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In any event, are the means of defence afforded to that public official by the Italian legislation consistent with the principle of proportionality, in light of the fact that, under Article 38 of Decree No 131/1986 of the President of the Republic, it is irrelevant whether the resolution to increase share capital is null and void or may be annulled, and repayment of the duty paid may be effected only after a civil judgment declaring the transaction null and void or annulling it has become final?

---

(1)  OJ, English Special Edition, 1969 (II), p. 412.

1

---
Victoria SHEPPARD, petitioner, v. OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS, et al.

No. 17M82.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.