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

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

Under section 10(b) of Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) notice is hereby given that the Fifth Annual Report of the Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans has been issued. The Report provides an assessment of veterans' readjustment needs, a review of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) services and programs available to meet these needs and VA's comments regarding the actions recommended by the Committee.

It is available for public inspection at two locations:

Mr. Edward L. Malone, Jr., Federal Advisory Committee Desk, Library of Congress, Anglo-American Acquisition Division, Government Documents Section, Room LM-B42, 101 Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20540-4172,

   and

Department of Veterans Affairs, Readjustment Counseling Service, VA Central Office, Suite 854, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420.

Dated: June 13, 2001.

Ventris C. Gibson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-16107 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>          JUN-30-1997

<CASH>                       1,658,163 
<SECURITIES>                     0     
<RECEIVABLES>                   31,103 
<ALLOWANCES>                     0     
<INVENTORY>                     39,683 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 0     
<PP&E>                       2,776,878 
<DEPRECIATION>                   0     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               4,798,296 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            0     
<BONDS>                          0     
<COMMON>                         0     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0     
<PREFERRED>                      0     
<OTHER-SE>                 (87,679,513)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 4,798,296 
<SALES>                     31,660,959 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>            31,660,959 
<CGS>                         (890,122)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 (890,122)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             7,809,409 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               0     
<INCOME-PRETAX>             24,741,672 
<INCOME-TAX>                     0     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>         24,741,672 
<DISCONTINUED>                   0     
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0     
<CHANGES>                        0     
<NET-INCOME>                24,741,672 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    97.77 
<EPS-DILUTED>                    97.77 

          

</TABLE>
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C-302/09)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – State Aid – Aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia – Reductions of social security contributions – Recovery

1.                     *State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Application of national law – Conditions – Setting in motion a procedure ensuring that
effect is immediately and effectively given to the Commission’s decision (Arts 88(2) EC and 249 EC; Council Regulation No
659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 35-36, 38)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Failure to perform the duty of recovering unlawful aid – Defences – Absolute impossibility
of implementation – Criteria for assessment – Difficulties in implementing – Duty of the Commission and of the Member State
to collaborate in seeking a solution compatible with the Treaty (Arts 10 EC and 88(2) EC) (see paras 40-42)*

3.                     *State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Application of national law – Interim suspension measures adopted by the national court
– Lawfulness – Conditions (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(3)) (see paras 45-47)*

4.                     *State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Obligation – Duty to implement immediately and effectively the Commission’s decision
– Legislative steps, intended to ensure the implementation of the Commission’s decision, taken belatedly – Breach of that
obligation (Arts 88(2) EC and 249 EC) (see paras 53-55)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (notified under document number C(1999) 4268) (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under the aid scheme declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that decision; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
# C_2010288EN.01003901.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM — Maclean (Archer Maclean’s Mercury)

(Case T-106/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Archer Maclean’s Mercury - Earlier national word mark Merkur - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2010/C 288/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Archer Maclean (Banbury, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2009 (Case R 1266/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between adp Gauselmann GmbH and Archer Maclean

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders adp Gauselmann GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.

---
STACEY O. JONES

,

Appellant,

v.

JOANN KIRKLAND

- JONES

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 2507

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 11, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. John "Jay" Gontarek , J udge

.

Frederick J. Gant, Pensacola , for Appellant.

Janis L. Burke, Fort Walton Beach , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF

, ROWE

, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
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.                  

###### Susquehanna River Basin Commission

# AGENCY:

Susquehanna River Basin Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice lists the minor modifications approved for a previously approved project by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in                         **DATES**                        .                    

# DATES:

March 1-31, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436; email:                         *joyler@srbc.net.*                         Regular mail inquiries may be sent to the above address.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This notice lists previously approved projects, receiving approval of minor modifications, described below, pursuant to 18 CFR 806.18 or to Commission Resolution Nos. 2013-11 and 2015-06 for the time period specified above:                          ( print page 22012)    

## Minor Modification Issued Under 18 CFR 806.18

1. Sunset Golf Club LLC, Docket No. 20220317, Oneida Township, Huntington County, Pa.; modification approval to change the consumptive use mitigation method; Approval Date: March 18, 2022.

*Authority:*                     Public Law 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509                     *et seq.,*18 CFR parts 806 and 808.                

Dated: April 8, 2022.

Jason E. Oyler,

General Counsel and Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2022-07884 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7040-01-P
Rodney Jeffrey YOUNG, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8414.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Gerald MIKE, petitioner, v. Mark GARMAN, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Rockview.

No. 17-7406.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            5

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1998

<CASH>                                               16,414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        39,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     55,580
<PP&E>                                               918,120
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (819,400)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       189,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                2,248,698
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1,281
<OTHER-SE>                                           (1,785,675)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         189,278
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     157,709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (161,459)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (161,459)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (161,459)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)



</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, C5> ~AC~ No. 67513-3-1 v -n .^

__ v£2 *v> -n: DIVISION ONE ton* IP1"* ^lC *P* ~C r^r" it/> UNPUBLISHED OPINION c= SERGIO PERALTA,Appellant. 

### FILED: JUL 2 9 2013 PER CURIAM. Sergio Peralta appeals from an order amending ajudgment 

### and sentence entered on July 2, 2009. Peralta's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw on the ground thatthere is no basis for a good faith argument on review. Pursuantto State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970), and Anders v. California. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L Ed. 2d 493 (1967), the motion to withdraw must: 

### [1] be accompanied by a briefreferring to anything in the record that might arguably supportthe appeal. [2] A copy ofcounsel's brief should be furnished the indigent and [3] time allowed him to raise any points 

### that he chooses; [4] the court-not counsel-then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whetherthe case iswholly frivolous. 

### State v. Theobald. 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quotingAnders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744).No. 67513-3-1/2 

### This procedure has been followed. Peralta's counsel on appeal filed a brief withthe motion to withdraw. Peralta was served with a copy of the briefand informed ofthe right to file a statementofadditional grounds for review. Peralta has filed a statement ofadditional grounds for review. 

### The facts are accurately setforth in counsel's brief in support ofthe motion to 

### withdraw. The court has reviewed the briefs filed in this court and has independently reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered the following potential issues raised by counsel: 

### 1. Whetherthe trial courtviolated Peralta's right to be present at the July 2009 entry ofthe agreed order amending thejudgment and sentence? 2. Whetherthe trial court denied Peralta his right to counsel ofchoice? The court also considered the following issues raised by Peralta in his statement ofadditional grounds on review: 1. Whether Peralta was denied his right to an accurate verbatim report of proceedings? 2. Whether appointed appellate counsel had a conflict of interest? 3. Whether Peralta was denied effective assistance of counsel at the February 18, 2009 resentencing hearing? 4. Whether Peralta voluntarily waived his rights before entry ofthe agreed 

### order ofjudgmenton the lesser included offense ofsecond degree rape? 5. Whetherthe State breached the agreedjudgment by seeking an amended order restoring the sexual motivation finding?No. 67513-3-1/3


### The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

For the court:


# uQrtjJ >
Sandra S. FORQUER, petitioner, v. SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C., et al.

No. 17-5238.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Andrew U.D. STRAW, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA.

No. 17-7499.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# L_2007266EN.01000801.xml

| 11.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 266/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 266/8

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 50/2007

of 8 June 2007

amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement

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 Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex IX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 21/2007 of 27 April 2007 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex IX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 21/2007 of 27 April 2007 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2006/891/EC of 4 December 2006 on the use by third country issuers of securities of information prepared under internationally accepted accounting standards (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2006/891/EC of 4 December 2006 on the use by third country issuers of securities of information prepared under internationally accepted accounting standards (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 23ba (Commission Directive 2006/70/EC) of Annex IX to the Agreement:

| ‘23c. | 32006 D 0891: Commission Decision 2006/891/EC of 4 December 2006 on the use by third country issuers of securities of information prepared under internationally accepted accounting standards (OJ L 343, 8.12.2006, p. 96).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘23c.

Article 2

The texts of Decision 2006/891/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 9 June 2007, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

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 2007.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Alan SEATTER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 209, 9.8.2007, p. 21.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 343, 8.12.2006, p. 96.

2

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Charles T. DAVIS, petitioner, v. Eddie SIMMERSON, et al.

No. 17-5333.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2010024EN.01002902.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium), lodged on 17 November 2009 — Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd and Others

(Case C-446/09)

2010/C 24/54

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV

Claimant:

Defendants: Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd and Others

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 6(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 (1) of 22 December 1994 (the old Customs Regulation) constitute a uniform rule of Community law which must be taken into account by the court of the Member State which, in accordance with Article 7 of the Regulation, has been approached by the holder of an intellectual-property right, and does that rule imply that, in making its decision, the court may not take into account the temporary storage status/transit status and must apply the fiction that the goods were manufactured in that same Member State, and must then decide, by applying the law of that Member State, whether those goods infringe the intellectual-property right in question?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ 1994 L 341, p. 8).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10Q OF BORLAND
INTERNATIONAL, INC. THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          74,844
<SECURITIES>                                     1,754
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,018
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,469
<PP&E>                                         105,241
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 216,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,212
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     24,112
<COMMON>                                       312,563
<OTHER-SE>                                    (219,793)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   216,919
<SALES>                                         41,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,970
<CGS>                                            6,356
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (171)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    280
<INCOME-TAX>                                       201
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 79
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        79
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
Arthur Demerill SANTIFUL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7971.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Steven Allen WELDON, petitioner, v. Michael PACHECO, Warden, et al.

No. 17-8294.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

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