alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18002]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-3215-EM]


Arkansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Arkansas (FEMA-3215-EM), dated September 2, 2005, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Carlos 
Mitchell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this declared emergency.
    This action terminates my appointment of Gary Jones as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-18002 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
# C_2023216EN.01005401.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/54

---

Action brought on 2 May 2023 — Debonair Trading Internacional v EUIPO — Lea Nature Services (LEA NATURE SO’BIO ETIC)

(Case T-225/23)

(2023/C 216/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: J. Quirin and J.-P. Jacquey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LEA NATURE SO’BIO ETIC — Application for registration No 17 592 486

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2023 in Case R 206/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul all cost orders made against the applicant by EUIPO and to order the latter to bear the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all cost orders made against the applicant by EUIPO and to order the latter to bear the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk March 4, 2013

d0225 

# Order

March 4, 2013

145656(29)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145656

COA: 309193

Ingham CC: 92

- 063865

- FH

BJ THOMAS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November

20, 2012 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order

was entered erroneously.

V IVIANO , J., not participating.
STATE v. Ruben WRIGHT, Jr.

No. 614P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 2, 2008.

James R. Parish, Fayetteville, for Wright.

G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of January 2008 by State of NC for Extension of Time to File Response:

"Motion Allowed. State of NC shall have up to and including the 1st day of February 2008 to file and serve his/her response with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of January 2008."
# CE2004078EN.01036301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/363 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/363

---

(2004/C 78 E/0382)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1232/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Member States' policies on airport expansion

Subject:

Could the Commission provide a summary of the principal airport expansion plans in Member States of which it is aware, and give its opinion on whether it considers that the plans are:

| 1. | sufficiently co-ordinated across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

sufficiently co-ordinated across the EU;

| 2. | adequate to deal with the projected increase in air passenger demand over the next 40 years? |
| --- | --- |

2.

adequate to deal with the projected increase in air passenger demand over the next 40 years?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

(15 May 2003)

The Commission does not systematically compile or administer information on expansion of Union airports and, as a result, does not have a comprehensive overview of such current or planned expansion as the subject of airport management and planning falls under the responsibility of Member States.

The Commission recognises that the long term growth of air transport has important implications for the provision of air transport infrastructure. The Commission White Paper of September 2001 (1) identified capacity constraints in the air and on the ground as key obstacles to economic growth. In its work programme for 2003, the Commission has included the publication of a Communication on airport capacity. In this context, preparations for the definition of a Community policy on airport capacity and airport efficiency are in progress. As indicated in the White Paper, and in the light of reactions to it, the Commission examines whether the revision of the existing guidelines on the Trans-European Network for Transport aiming at concentrating on the most important infrastructure for international traffic and cohesion on the European continent, may be part of this policy.

1

---

(1)  ‘White Paper — European transport policy for 2010: Time to decide’, European Communities September 2001.

1

---
# C_2023216EN.01002601.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 March 2023 — Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS) v Consip SpA

(Case C-189/23, Consorzio Nazionale Servizi)

(2023/C 216/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Consorzio Nazionale Servizi Società Cooperativa (CNS)

Respondent: Consip SpA

Question referred

Do Articles 16, 49, 50 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 TEU, and the principles of proportionality, competition, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 49, 50, 54 and 56 TFEU preclude national rules (Articles 38(1)(f), 48 and 75 of decreto legislativo n. 163 (Legislative Decree No 163) of 2006) which provide for the application of the penalty of forfeiture of the provisional security, as an automatic consequence of the exclusion of an economic operator from a procedure for the award of a public service contract, even though that economic operator has already been the addressee, in relation to the same single conduct, of another penalty determined following a specific procedure initiated by another competent authority of the same Member State?

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50530 Conference Calendar

THOMAS D. TINER, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus FNU TREON, Warden, Terrell Unit, Texas Department of Corrections; ET AL, Respondents, GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-98-CV-149

-------------------- August 23, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Thomas D. Tiner, Texas inmate #706290, appeals the districtcourt’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as timebarred. Tiner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Tiner admits that his § 2254 petition was not filed timely. He contends, however, that equitable tolling should be applied in his case. Tiner asserts that the State, the district attorney,No. 99-50530 -2- and his attorney on direct appeal would not provide him a copy of his state records. Tiner contends that his inability to obtain the record prevented him from filing a timely § 2254 petition. The statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), is subject to equitable tolling in rare and exceptional circumstances. Davis v. Johnson , 158 F.3d 806, 811-12 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 1474 (1999). “[E]quitable tolling applies principally where the plaintiff is actively misled by the defendant about the cause of action or is prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his rights.” Felder v. Johnson , 204 F.3d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 2000)(internal quotations and citation omitted). Tolling should not be applied “unless the circumstances presented in a particular case are on a par with the conditions listed in § 2244(d).” See Felder , 204 F.3d at 172. Tiner’s allegations do not constitute rare and exceptional circumstances warranting equitable tolling. Tiner has not shown that the State actively misled him or prevented him from filing a timely § 2254 petition. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing Tiner’s § 2254 petition as time-barred is
AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,379,142
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,097,148
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (110,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    5,269,996
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,253,645
<PP&E>                                         745,884
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (324,830)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,732,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,649,797
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       44,974
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,038,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,732,853
<SALES>                                        26,443,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               26,443,939
<CGS>                                          19,820,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,226,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               90,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,657,681
<INCOME-TAX>                                   546,815
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,110,866
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,110,866
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.24
        


</TABLE>
# C_2023024EN.01005301.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/53

---

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Khayamedia v Commission

(Case T-695/22)

(2023/C 24/72)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Khayamedia Comércio Internacional de Eventos Desportivos, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Charles Anthony FULLER.

No. 87P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Charles A. Fuller, Pro Se.

Douglas A. Johnston, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 15th day of February *8852008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th day of February 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 54 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 

of services provided by nursing school clinics under State medicaid programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. REID (for Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide 

for coverage of services provided by nursing school clinics 

under State medicaid programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nursing School Clinics 

5 Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY 

7 NURSING SCHOOL CLINICS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905(a) of the Social Se9 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended— 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 54 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (27), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) by redesignating paragraph (28) as para4 graph (29); and 

5 (3) by inserting after paragraph (27), the fol6 lowing new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(28) nursing school clinic services (as defined 

8 in subsection (y)) furnished by or under the super9 vision of a nurse practitioner or a clinical nurse spe10 cialist (as defined in section 1861(aa)(5)), whether 

11 or not the nurse practitioner or clinical nurse spe12 cialist is under the supervision of, or associated with, 

13 a physician or other health care provider; and’’. 

14 (b) NURSING SCHOOL CLINIC SERVICES DEFINED.— 

15 Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) 

16 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub17 section: 

18 ‘‘(y) The term ‘nursing school clinic services’ means 

19 services provided by a health care facility operated by an 

20 accredited school of nursing which provides primary care, 

21 long-term care, mental health counseling, home health 

22 counseling, home health care, or other health care services 

23 which are within the scope of practice of a registered 

24 nurse.’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
3 

•S 54 IS

1 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

2 1902(a)(10)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

3 1396a(a)(10)(C)(iv)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and (28)’’ 

4 after ‘‘(24)’’. 

5 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall be effective with respect to payments 

7 made under a State plan under title XIX of the Social 

8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) for calendar quar9 ters commencing with the first calendar quarter beginning 

10 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1363/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1363/2014 of 18 December 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1363/2014                     

# of 18 December 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing                           a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79,                           (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 December 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
Exhibit 3.1.1

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
TO THE
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
EDISON MISSION ENERGY

---

Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

---

Edison
Mission Energy, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter called the "Corporation") does hereby certify as follows:



---





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Edison Mission Energy has caused this Certificate to be duly executed in its corporate name this 4th day of May, 2004.

| |  | EDISON MISSION ENERGY
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | By:                  
| |  | Name:                
| |  | Title:               

---