alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16151]



[[Page 34260]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38, 303; TA-W-38, 303A]


CMI Industries Inc.; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility 
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on 
December 28, 2000, applicable to workers of CMI Industries, Inc., 
Geneva, Alabama. The notice was published in the Federal Register on 
January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2450).
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows 
that worker separations occurred at the New York Sales Offices, Greige 
Division Sales of CMI Industries, New York, New York. Workers at the 
New York Sales Offices, Greige Division Sales provide administrative 
services to support the production of greige woven fabric at the 
subject firms' manufacturing facilities.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending the 
certification to include workers of the New York Sales Offices, greige 
Division Sales, CMI Industries, Inc., New York, New York.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of CMI Industries, Inc. who were adversely affected by 
increased imports of greige woven fabric.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-38, 303 is hereby issued as 
follows;

    All workers of CMI Industries, Inc., Geneva, Alabama (TA-W-38, 
303) and New York Sales Offices, Greige Division Sales, New York, 
New York (TA-W-38, 303A) who became totally or partially separated 
from employment on or after October 27, 1999, through December 28, 
2002 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 
223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 12th day of June, 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-16151 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 362 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 362

  To amend the Department of Energy Organization Act with respect to 
  functions assigned to Assistant Secretaries, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2019

 Mr. Rush (for himself and Mr. Walberg) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Department of Energy Organization Act with respect to 
  functions assigned to Assistant Secretaries, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Emergency Leadership Act''.

SEC. 2. FUNCTIONS ASSIGNED TO ASSISTANT SECRETARIES.

    Subsection (a) of section 203 of the Department of Energy 
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7133(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new paragraph:
            ``(12) Energy emergency and energy security functions, 
        including--
                    ``(A) responsibilities with respect to 
                infrastructure, cybersecurity, emerging threats, 
                supply, and emergency planning, coordination, response, 
                and restoration; and
                    ``(B) upon request of a State, local, or tribal 
                government or energy sector entity, and in consultation 
                with other Federal agencies as appropriate, provision 
                of technical assistance, support, and response 
                capabilities with respect to energy security threats, 
                risks, and incidents.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2009267EN.01003402.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 August 2009 — B.A.M. Vermeer Contracting Sp. z o.o.; other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

(Case C-308/09)

2009/C 267/63

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: B.A.M. Vermeer Contracting Sp. z. o.o.

Appellant:

Other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 49 EC and 50 EC be interpreted as precluding a national arrangement, as set out in Article 2 of the Netherlands Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), read in conjunction with Article 1e(1)(c) of the Decree implementing the Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Besluit uitvoering Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), under which a work permit is required for the hiring-out of workers as referred to in Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 49 EC and 50 EC be interpreted as precluding a national arrangement, as set out in Article 2 of the Netherlands Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), read in conjunction with Article 1e(1)(c) of the Decree implementing the Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Besluit uitvoering Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), under which a work permit is required for the hiring-out of workers as referred to in Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC? (1)

1

| 2. | On the basis of what criteria should it be determined whether workers have been hired out within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

On the basis of what criteria should it be determined whether workers have been hired out within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC?

---

(1)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).

1

---
John E. WETZEL, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al., petitioners, v. Tyrone MOORE.

No. 15-1411.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2009205EN.01002803.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/28

---

Action brought on 7 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-252/09)

2009/C 205/49

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and G. Braga da Cruz, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/16/EC (1) of 19 March 2007 implementing Council Directive 85/611/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) as regards the clarification of certain definitions, or in any event by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2007/16/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/16/EC (1) of 19 March 2007 implementing Council Directive 85/611/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) as regards the clarification of certain definitions, or in any event by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2007/16/EC;

1

| — | Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 23 March 2008.

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 79, p. 11.

1

---
THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM, INC., et al., petitioners, v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA.

No. 16-598.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
Shantu N. SHAH, petitioner, v. SOLARE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING, INC., et al.

No. 16-6562.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until January 3, 2017, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Leslie Grey VANAMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7820.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
JING GUO JIN, petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 17-6398.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
II-00183

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Darlene Bruton <bbruton3 @yahoo.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 11:01 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

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 (RIN 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.

Darlene Bruton

15921 linda ave

Los Gatos, CA 950324815
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16074]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-4874]


Leggett and Platt, Inc., Plastics Division; Forest City, NC; 
Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment 
assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with Section 
250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on May 9, 
2001, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Leggett 
and Platt, Inc., Plastics Division, Forest City, North Carolina.
    The petitioners filed their petition more than one year after the 
subject facility had closed and they had been separated from 
employment. In accordance with Section 223(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, 
as amended, no certification may apply to any worker whose last total 
or partial separation from the subject firm occurred one year prior to 
the date of the petition. Consequently, further investigation in this 
case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 6th day of June, 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-16074 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Susanna SCHAEFER, petitioner, v. ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al.

No. 16M66.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out time denied.
LINDA SHAO, petitioner, v. TSAN-KUEN WANG.

No. 17-613.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
II-00629

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Bryan Hopper <codeeight@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:13 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

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 (RIN 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.

Bryan Hopper

7051J ALOMA AVE

WINTER PARK, FL 32792
# C_2010234EN.01001901.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/19

---

Order of the Court of 23 April 2010 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Frosch Touristik GmbH, DSR touristik GmbH

(Case C-332/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community word mark FLUGBÖRSE - Invalidity proceedings - Material date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity)

2010/C 234/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Frosch Touristik GmbH (represented by: H. Lauf, Rechtsanwalt), DSR touristik GmbH

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 2009 in Case T-189/07 Frosch Touristik v OHIM — DSR touristik (FLUGBÖRSE), by which the Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 dismissing the appeal by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘FLUGBÖRSE’ against the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring that mark partially invalid — Determination of the material date for the examination of an absolute ground for invalidity in invalidity proceedings

Frosch Touristik

OHIM — DSR touristik (FLUGBÖRSE)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.

1

---
# C_2009153EN.01002802.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 8 May 2009 — Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas O.E. v Ipourgos Ikonomikon

(Case C-160/09)

2009/C 153/53

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas O.E.

Applicant:

Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Can an individual (an importer of bananas from Ecuador) who claims the refund of domestic excise duty as having been wrongly paid plead before the national court that the national tax rule (Article 7 of Law 1798/1988, as amended by Article 10 of Law 1914/1990) is incompatible with Article 4 of the 1984 agreement between the European Economic Community and the member countries of the Cartagena Agreement, which was approved by Council Regulation (ΕEC) No 1591/84? (1)

1

---

(1)  OJ L 153, 8.6.1984, p. 1.

1

---
II-00371

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Deborah Finn <dfinn@earthlink.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:39 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

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

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 (RIN 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.

Deborah Finn

214 Hillsborough St.

Chapel Hill, NC 27514
# C_2010134EN.01001402.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Município de Barcelos (Portugal) lodged on 23 October 2009 — Município de Barcelos v Portuguese State

(Case C-408/09)

2010/C 134/22

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Município de Barcelos

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Município de Barcelos

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese State

Defendant:

By order of 12 February 2010, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that it clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Município de Barcelos.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,

RELATOR

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00078-CV

An Original Proceeding

in Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Midland Funding, LLC, has filed a mandamus petition against the Honorable 

Carlos Villa, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 5 of El Paso, County, asking that the Court 

order Respondent to set aside the judgment entered in favor of Miguel Marquez, the Real Party 

in Interest, and to dismiss the de novo appeal from the Justice Court. We deny the petition for 

writ of mandamus.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator generally must meet two requirements. First, 

the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Insurance 

Company of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the relator must demonstrate 

that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 136. 

On July 27, 2016, the Court issued its opinion granting mandamus relief. The Court 

granted Marquez’s motion for rehearing and permitted him to file a response to the mandamus 
- 2 -

petition. Based on the record before us, we conclude that Relator has failed to establish that it is 

entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

February 17, 2017

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., Not Participating
David B. FENKELL, v. ALLIANCE HOLDINGS, INC., et al.

No. 16-473 (R46-005).

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 19, 2017.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.