alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17806]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5184]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Fra Angelico''

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On January 31, 2005, Notice was published on page 4913 of the 
Federal Register (Volume 70, Number 19) by the Department of State 
pertaining to the exhibition ``Fra Angelico.'' The referenced Notice is 
hereby corrected to include eight additional loans imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, which I hereby 
determine are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign lenders. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY from on or about October 25, 
2005 to on or about January 29, 2006, and at possible additional venues 
yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of 
these determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: 
202/453-8048). The address is Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: August 31, 2005.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 05-17806 Filed 9-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      321
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (5)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,373
<PP&E>                                           4,224
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,971
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,206
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,699
<SALES>                                            706
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   706
<CGS>                                            2,331
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 146
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,488)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,488)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.93)


</TABLE>
# C_2023338EN.01003901.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/39

---

Action brought on 31 July 2023 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB

(Case T-486/23)

(2023/C 338/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Landesbank (represented by: H. Berger, M. Weber and D. Schoo, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as the contested decision together with Annexes I, II and III concern the applicant’s contribution, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as the contested decision together with Annexes I, II and III concern the applicant’s contribution,

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

—

order the SRB to pay the costs.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the SRB and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

—

order the SRB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-440/23, Berlin Hyp v SRB.

---
IN RE D.C.

No. COA08-276.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from New Hanover (04J493).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THERMOSPECTRA CORP.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 28, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          14,501
<SECURITIES>                                     3,038
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,555
<INVENTORY>                                     24,592
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,282
<PP&E>                                          26,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,953
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                      87,009
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,908
<SALES>                                         88,537
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,537
<CGS>                                           45,577
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,190
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   182
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,790
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,102
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,688
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,688
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 (repealed)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

# Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 (repealed)

# 2014 CHAPTER 3

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Act repealed (16.11.2017) by Northern Ireland Budget Act 2017 (c. 34), **s. 6**
STATE v. Darrell Wayne MANESS.

No. 402A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Maness.

Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of July 2008 by State of NC to Amend Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of October 2008."
----

(2004/C 33 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0656/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject:   Dredgers in Indonesia

On 26 July 2002 a number of dredgers, including three Belgian vessels, were stopped by the Indonesian navy near Sumatra. They were apparently not carrying the correct papers. An accusation of theft of sand was also made. The vessels were subsequently held under arrest.

On 9 October an Indonesian court fined each of the Belgian dredgers over EUR 3 000 for not having the correct papers on board, but only copies. Following payment of the fines the vessels should have been released. The judge makes no reference in his verdict to theft of sand. The fact is that there was no question of theft. If too small an amount of sand extracted was stated, this is solely to be ascribed to the local concession holders, who are in contact with the central authorities. That, however, is an internal Indonesian problem. The Indonesian Government ignored the judgement and decided, regardless of the judge, to demand damages of EUR 18,5 million as a condition for release. This sum amounts to 15 % of the dredgers' value. The Indonesian Government refers to compensation for the losses suffered by the Indonesian population due to disadvantageous conditions in respect of sand extraction laid down by previous governments. The dredgers have paid the sum and have since been released.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of the issue concerning court proceedings in Indonesia and the impounding and subsequent release of a number of dredgers, among them Belgian vessels.

At this stage, the Commission does not consider that the behaviour of the Indonesian Government conflicts with its World Trade Organisation obligations.

With regard to the alleged ignorance of the judgement by the Indonesian Government the Commission considers this as an internal problem which has no bearing on Indonesia's international obligations. The Commission therefore does not intend to intervene with the Indonesian Government at this stage.

----
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Stratus      Services Group, Inc.**

| 1. | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated: March                31, 2006 | By:    | /s/                Joseph J. Raymond                 |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                      |   | Joseph                J. Raymond                     |
|                                      |   | Chairman                of the Board of Directors,   |
|                                      |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer |
# C_2023296EN.01003301.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/33

---

Action brought on 15 May 2023 — Volvo Personvagnar v EUIPO (Shape of headlights)

(Case T-260/23)

(2023/C 296/37)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Volvo Personvagnar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: H.-A. Odh and E. Esaiasson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU three-dimensional mark (Shape of headlights) — Application for registration No 18 560 591

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2023 in Case R 1129/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision under Article 72 EUTMR and alter the decision in order to approve the applicant’s application for registration of EU trade mark No 18 560 591; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision under Article 72 EUTMR and alter the decision in order to approve the applicant’s application for registration of EU trade mark No 18 560 591;

| — | order the defendant, on the basis of Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to pay the applicant’s costs in both the proceedings before the Court and before the European Union Intellectual Property Office; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant, on the basis of Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to pay the applicant’s costs in both the proceedings before the Court and before the European Union Intellectual Property Office;

| — | treat the following evidence as confidential:
  Annex A.1 — Statement by expert Aina Nilsson Ström and annex (CV)
  Annex A.3 — Confirmation of a licence between Volvo Cars and Polestar. |
| --- | --- |

—

treat the following evidence as confidential:

Annex A.1 — Statement by expert Aina Nilsson Ström and annex (CV)

Annex A.3 — Confirmation of a licence between Volvo Cars and Polestar.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1208/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1208/2014 of 11 November 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 1208/2014                     

# of 11 November 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, 11 November 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.
# C_2023329EN.01001002.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Mönchengladbach-Rheydt (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2023 — ZO v JS

(Case C-381/23, Geterfer (1))

(2023/C 329/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Mönchengladbach-Rheydt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZO

Defendant: JS

Question referred

According to Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, (2) is there lis alibi pendens with the same subject matter if there are proceedings concerning child maintenance in Belgium between the child’s father and the child’s mother while proceedings concerning child maintenance have been brought at a later stage by the child, who has in the meantime come of age, against the child’s mother in Germany?

---

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1).

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR TANISYS TECHNOLOGY,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE
NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,043,543
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,070,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                   280,213
<INVENTORY>                                  3,872,129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,480,458
<PP&E>                                       5,589,555
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,561,013
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,684,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,567,151
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        3,605,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    29,034,774
<OTHER-SE>                                (27,163,834)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,684,699
<SALES>                                     23,981,692
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,981,692
<CGS>                                       19,927,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,927,368
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,556,826
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               350,868
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             459,413
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,911,788)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,911,788)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,911,788)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01030301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/303 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/303

---

(2004/C 88 E/0309)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3737/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject:   ‘ABEJ — Solidarités’

Subject:

‘ABEJ — Solidarités’, based in Lille (France), is an association which performs important work with street children. Its work, however, is now being put at risk thanks to a 55 % cut in the health budget for 2003.

Between 700 and 800 recipients of help at street level could be affected by this, with the consequent worsening of social exclusion.

Can the Commission explain the reasons for the reduction in support to associations of this kind, and state what measures it intends to take to prevent social exclusion from becoming worse?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

(30 January 2003)

The Commission has no information concerning the reduction of the aid granted to the French association ‘ABEJ — Solidarités’. The amount of this aid is determined solely by the French Government when adopting the national annual budget.

An analysis of the efforts made by the governments of the Member States to combat poverty and social exclusion is to be conducted by the Commission, in partnership with the Member States, when the second series of national action plans to combat poverty and social exclusion is presented in July 2003. The results of this analysis will be given in the second joint report on social inclusion, to be submitted to the European Council in spring 2004.

---