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 State

          - [Public Notice 5188] 

# AGENCY:

Department of State. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459], Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*], Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999 [64 FR 56014], Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999 [64 FR 57920], as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition, “Elizabeth Murray,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign lenders. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about October 23, 2005, to on or about January 9, 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 exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/453-8052, and the address is United States Department of State, SA-44, Room 700, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: September 7, 2005. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 05-18127 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
# C_2009282EN.01003602.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission

(Case T-175/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for monochloroacetic acid - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Market sharing and price fixing - Attributability of the infringement - Fines - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Deterrent effect)

2009/C 282/67

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Arnhem, Netherlands); Akzo Nobel Nederland BV (Arnhem); Akzo Nobel AB (Stockholm, Sweden); Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV (Amersfoort, Netherlands); Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV (Amersfoort); Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB (Skoghall, Sweden); and Eka Chemicals AB (Bohus, Sweden) (represented initially by C. Swaak and A. Käyhkö, and subsequently by C. Swaak and M. van der Woude, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by P. Hellström and F. Amato, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and X. Lewis, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — MCAA) and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel AB, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB and Eka Chemicals AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel AB, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB and Eka Chemicals AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.

1

---
# CE2004084EN.01023302.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/233 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/233

---

(2004/C 84 E/0276)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3313/03

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Negotiations on the EU Constitutional Treaty

Subject:

On 25 October 2003, it was revealed that, at the informal Ecofin meeting in Stresa, Finance Ministers had been working on substantial changes to the EU Constitutional Treaty, drafted by the European Convention, which were then recorded in the paper, ‘Drafting suggestions on Articles of interest to Ecofin ministers, reflecting a high degree of consensus reached at the Informal Ecofin in Stresa’.

Why are these suggestions treated as confidential and not published immediately, or when did they officially become publicly accessible?

Does the Council Presidency consider it appropriate for Ecofin to take up a position in this way?

Can the Council state which EU Finance Ministers supported these suggestions at the Ecofin meeting in Stresa?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

(9 March 2004)

The Council has not taken any formal position on the draft Constitutional Treaty or on any issues for discussion in the intergovernmental conference, in which the Council as an institution has no role. The paper to which the Member refers relates to an Informal meeting of Ministers of Economy and Finance.

Following discussions at that informal meeting, the Presidency communicated, the outcome of the Ministers' discussions to the President of the intergovernmental conference.

In preparing its documentation for IGC discussions, the IGC President highlighted those points which were discussed by Finance Ministers, — as indicated in document CIG 37/03 Presid 3 of 24 October 2003, which is publicly available.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EDISON
MISSION ENERGY AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 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>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         387,119
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               579,987
<PP&E>                                       4,921,468
<DEPRECIATION>                                 269,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,931,231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,013,879
<BONDS>                                      2,575,715
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          150,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,130
<OTHER-SE>                                     924,901
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,931,231
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,369
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 74,237
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,301
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       13,840
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,096
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004078EN.01010501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/105 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/105

---

(2004/C 78 E/0105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2348/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Measures to be taken in response to evidence that oil from the ‘Prestige’ is continuing to reach the coasts of Galicia and the Bay of Biscay

Subject:

It is now July, eight months after the ‘Prestige’ disaster, and oil from the ‘Prestige’ is continuing to reach the coasts of Galicia and the Bay of Biscay. This is undermining confidence among people living in the areas affected, who can see that the forecasts made by the authorities responsible are systematically failing to match reality. What measures is the Commission taking, in conjunction with the authorities of the Spanish State and Galician Government, in order to assess the scale of this problem and prevent it from recurring?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

(10 September 2003)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answers given to his previous Written Questions E-3595/02 (1), E-1259/03 (2) and E-2059/03 (3), and to his oral question H-69/03 during question time at Parliament's March 2003 session (4).

1

2

3

4

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 63.

1

(2)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 121.

2

(3)  See page 73.

3

(4)  Written reply, 12.3.2003.

4

---
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 Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1541. 

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-1819 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
# CE2004088EN.01044102.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/441 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/441

---

(2004/C 88 E/0448)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2859/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Quantity of European funding for the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organisation Hamas

Subject:

Since the European Union grants substantial funding to the Palestinian Authority, and at the recent summit at Riva del Garda it finally gave the go-ahead for the inclusion of the Palestinian organisation Hamas on the blacklist of terrorist movements whose funds should be frozen, can the Commission say how much European funding has been granted to Hamas directly or indirectly up until now?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

(17 November 2003)

The Union has not entered into any contract with, nor granted any direct or indirect financial support to the organisation Hamas.

---
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 29, 2008

Ms. Sherry L. Peel

Office of the Attorney General of Texas

P.O. Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711

Mr. Richard H. Kelsey

Kelsey Kelsey Collister & Hickey

P.O. Box 918

Denton, TX 76202-0918

RE:Case Number:  05-0236

Court of Appeals Number:  02-04-00035-CV

Trial Court Number:  CV-93-00637-C

Style:THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

J. GRADY BROWN, JR.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 05-0236Page 1**
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 981/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 981/2014 of 16 September 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in Skagerrak            by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 981/2014                     

# of 16 September 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in Skagerrak by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014(2) lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 16 September 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
# C_2010024EN.01008202.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/82

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 September 2009 — Callewaert v Commission

(Case F-28/05) (1)

1

2010/C 24/158

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 06.08.2005, p. 29 (case initially lodged before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-192/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Court by order of 15.12.2005).

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50027

Summary Calendar

DENISE MCVEA

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JAMES CRISP

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CV-353

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Denise McVea moves this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this

appeal from the district court’s dismissal of her defamation suit against James

Crisp under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district

court denied McVea’s request to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the

appeal was not taken in good faith. McVea’s IFP motion is a challenge to the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 27, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50027

2

district court’s certification that her appeal is nottaken in good faith. See Baugh

v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1992). 

McVea argues that the district court erred in dismissing her complaint

because the statements made by Crisp were reasonably capable of defamatory

meaning and were not protected speech. She also contends that the district

court erred in considering irrelevant mitigating factors and in denying her

request to amend the complaint. However, McVea does not show how the

information she wished to include in her complaint would have altered the

district court’s decision. 

When read in response to McVea’s internet posting on a third party’s

research of a Texas historical subject and considering the debate surrounding

this subject, a person of ordinary intelligence would not find Crisp’s words

reasonably capable of defamatory meaning. See Musser v. Smith Protective

Services, Inc., 723 S.W.2d 653, 654-55 (Tex. 1987). McVea also fails to present

a nonfrivolous argument regarding the district court’s consideration of

mitigating factors. Under Texas law, the district court was required to examine

all the surrounding circumstances. See Musser, 723 S.W.2d at 655. 

McVea has not shown that she will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal.

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion

for leave for IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh,

117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Harold Lamont FLETCHER.

No. COA15-661.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated.
STATE v. Marvin Wade MILLSAPS.

No. 374P13-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Barry H. Bloch, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

*270Marvin W. Millsaps, Norlina, for Millsaps, Marvin Wade.

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of August 2015 by Defendant for Exculpatory Evidence Information Record:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

Ervin, J. recused.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 749 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 749

  To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of 
 certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial 
                                 names.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2007

 Mr. Nelson of Florida (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. 
Burr) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of 
 certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial 
                                 names.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION.

    Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(b) of division A 
of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-88) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
                    (A) by striking ``by a designated national''; and
                    (B) by inserting before the period ``that was used 
                in connection with a business or assets that were 
                confiscated unless the original owner of the mark, 
                trade name, or commercial name, or the bonafide 
                successor-in-interest has expressly consented'';
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``by a designated 
        national or its successor-in-interest'';
            (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e);
            (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
    ``(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall apply only 
if the person or entity asserting the rights knew or had reason to know 
at the time when the person or entity acquired the rights asserted that 
the mark, trade name, or commercial name was the same as or 
substantially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name that 
was used in connection with a business or assets that were 
confiscated.''; and
            (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking ``In 
        this section:'' and all that follows through ``(2) The term'' 
        and inserting ``In this section, the term''.
                                 <all>
```