alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012073EN.01000402.xml

| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Bianca Kücük v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-586/10) (1)

1

(Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Objective reasons liable to justify the renewal of such contracts - National rules justifying the use of fixed-term contracts in cases of temporary replacement - Permanent or recurring need for replacement staff - Taking into account of all circumstances surrounding the renewal of successive fixed-term contracts)

2012/C 73/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bianca Kücük

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — National rules allowing the temporary replacement of employees as an objective reason justifying the use of fixed-term contracts — ‘Objective reasons’ liable to justify the renewal of such contracts

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that a temporary need for replacement staff, provided for by national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may, in principle, constitute an objective reason under that clause. The mere fact that an employer may have to employ temporary replacements on a recurring, or even permanent, basis and that those replacements may also be covered by the hiring of employees under employment contracts of indefinite duration does not mean that there is no objective reason under clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement or that there is abuse within the meaning of that clause. However, in the assessment of the issue whether the renewal of fixed-term employment contracts or relationships is justified by such an objective reason, the authorities of the Member States must, for matters falling within their sphere of competence, take account of all the circumstances of the case, including the number and cumulative duration of the fixed-term employment contracts or relationships concluded in the past with the same employer.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1748 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1748

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
  States should initiate negotiations to enter into a bilateral free 
                      trade agreement with Turkey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2010

    Mr. Sensenbrenner (for himself, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Moran of 
Virginia) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
  States should initiate negotiations to enter into a bilateral free 
                      trade agreement with Turkey.

Whereas Turkey is the 17th largest economy in the world and is a founding member 
        of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and 
        the Group of Twenty (G-20);
Whereas Turkey has signed 16 free trade agreements with several countries and 
        the European Free Trade Association, and 14 of those agreements are in 
        effect;
Whereas Turkey is in negotiations to enter into free trade agreements with 
        several other countries, including Canada, Lebanon, South Africa, and 
        Mexico;
Whereas United States exports account for 6.09 percent of goods that enter 
        Turkey;
Whereas closer relations with Turkey through free trade agreements would 
        encourage further privatization in Turkey's economy;
Whereas from 2000 to 2009 Turkey's imports posted a 158 percent increase and 
        imports from free trade agreement countries increased by 118 percent; 
        and
Whereas Turkey is a democratic, secular, unitary, constitutional republic, with 
        an ancient cultural heritage and westward-looking future: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States should initiate negotiations to enter into a 
bilateral free trade agreement with Turkey.
                                 <all>
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4034 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

602 Pacific Avenue in Bremerton, Washington, as the ‘‘John Henry 

Turpin Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2019 

Mr. KILMER (for himself, Ms. DELBENE, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Ms. 

HERRERA BEUTLER, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Mrs. RODGERS of Washington, 

Ms. JAYAPAL, Ms. SCHRIER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, and Mr. HECK) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 602 Pacific Avenue in Bremerton, Washington, as the ‘‘John Henry Turpin Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. JOHN HENRY TURPIN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 602 Pacific Avenue in Brem6 erton, Washington, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘John Henry Turpin Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4034 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John Henry Turpin 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Jennifer SANDERS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8144.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: CME Telephone Call
  
    



  When
              09/21/2011

  Rulemaking(s)
              XII. DCM Core PrinciplesXXVI. Position Limits

  CFTC Staff
              Gary GenslerEric Juzenas

  Visitor(s)
              Craig Donohue, CME

  Organization(s)
              CME


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
Steve VERMILLION, et al., petitioners, v. Arthur WEST.

No. 17-15.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 denied.
Robert Earl BUTTS, Jr., petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 17-8787 (17A1220).

Supreme Court of the United States

May 4, 2018.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice THOMAS and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
In Re Cliven BUNDY, petitioner.

No. 17-141.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
                  from Wasatch  Pharmaceutical,  Inc.  March 31, 1999  financial
                  statements  and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
                  such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                       0000853465
<NAME>                      Wasatch Pharmaceutical, Inc.

       

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                     0
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0
<PP&E>                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                 (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               0
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                               0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              .00
        


</TABLE>
PAICE LLC, et al., petitioners, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

No. 17-112.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 9, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-523 Lower Tribunal No. 19-8275

________________ 

### The Estate of Nomie Dell Jefferson, et al.,

Appellants,
vs. 

### City of Florida City, etc., et al.,

Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Guzman, Judge. The Law Office of Wiley Hicks, and J. Wiley Hicks and Robert A. Schreiber, for appellants. The Monestime Firm, and Regine Monestime; and Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Sidney C. Calloway and Suzanne M. Driscoll (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee City of Florida City. Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. Dade Cty. v. Paxson, 270 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (concluding that the condemning authority proved reasonable necessity for the taking); Faison v. Div. of Admin., Dep’t of Transp., 299 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (stating that the trial judge was in the best position to evaluate and judge the credibility and weight to be accorded the testimony of the various witnesses); Rawls v. Leon Cty., 974 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (finding no evidence of bad faith or abuse of discretion, and competent substantial evidence to support the taking).
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission. 

# ACTION:

Opportunity to comment on draft questionnaires. 

# SUMMARY:

On June 22, 2001, the Commission received a request from the United States Trade Representative to institute an investigation under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) to determine whether certain steel products are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat of serious injury, to the domestic industries producing like or directly competitive products. 

                        Although the Commission has not formally instituted the investigation, it is in the process of finalizing questionnaires to be sent to domestic producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers once the investigation is instituted. On June 28, 2001, the Commission posted on its web site, for public comment, draft questionnaires to be issued in connection with the investigation. The web site can be accessed at                         *http://www.usitc.gov.*

Because time is of the essence, comments must be received in writing not later than 10 a.m. Monday, July 2, 2001. No requests for late filing will be accepted. Comments (an original and 14 copies) must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Neither facsimile copies nor electronic filings will be accepted. There is no service requirement. Comments will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Secretary and electronically through the Commission's EDIS system. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Contact Vera Libeau, Office of Investigations, 202-205-3176. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. 

Issued: June 26, 2001.

By order of the Commission. 

Donna R. Koehnke, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-16469 Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3844

___________

Darwin E. Conley, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

George Adams; Michael Dixon; Clifton *

Bowen; John Sydow; Arthur Wood; *

James H. Crosby; Larry Wilhite; * Appeal from the United States

James Eberle; Ronnie Boyd; * District Court for the 

Robert I. Williams; Nancy; Gerald * Western District of Missouri.

Bommel; James Rowland; Matthew *

Irwin; John Douglas; Raymond F. Kidd; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Robertson; Bales; McCormick; Betty *

Jaeger; David Dormire; Michael *

Groose; Dora Schriro; George *

Lombardi, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: November 7, 1997

 Filed: November 19, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

___________
The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Darwin E. Conley appeals from the district court&s order granting defendants

1

summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from prison discipline and

conditions of confinement. Upon our careful review of the record, we summarily affirm

the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Michael Terrill FAIRCLOTH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8467.

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.
Austin BLAIZE, petitioner, v. INDIANA.

No. 15-1433.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Indiana denied.
# L_2006245EN.01000401.xml

| 7.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 245/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 245/4

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 58/2006

of 2 June 2006

amending Annex VI (Social security) 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 VI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 118/2005 of 30 September 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex VI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 118/2005 of 30 September 2005 (1).

| (2) | Decision of the Administrative Commission of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers No 203 of 26 May 2005 amending Decision No 170 of 11 June 1998 concerning the compilation of the lists provided for in Articles 94(4) and 95(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision of the Administrative Commission of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers No 203 of 26 May 2005 amending Decision No 170 of 11 June 1998 concerning the compilation of the lists provided for in Articles 94(4) and 95(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 3.51 (Decision No 170) of Annex VI to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32005 D 0965: Decision No 203 of 26 May 2005 (OJ L 349, 31.12.2005, p. 27).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32005 D 0965: Decision No 203 of 26 May 2005 (OJ L 349, 31.12.2005, p. 27).’

Article 2

The texts of Decision No 203 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 3 June 2006, 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, 2 June 2006.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

R. WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 339, 22.12.2005, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 349, 31.12.2005, p. 27.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---