alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18452]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1310-01; WYW157569]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW157569 from Rocky 
Mountain Land & Leasing, Inc. for lands in Hot Springs County, Wyoming. 
The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals 
due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 
Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW157569 effective April 1, 2004, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the 
lands.

Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 05-18452 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
# CE2004084EN.01022201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/222 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/222

---

(2004/C 84 E/0266)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3123/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Deportation of Chechens

Subject:

A Chechen mother and her two children, aged six and seven, who arrived at Roissy airport on 2 October, were deported to Moscow on 12 October. According to the newspaper ‘Libération’, the woman, whose husband had been kidnapped by masked men, had chosen to flee Grozny after receiving threats whilst she was looking for her husband. The French authorities deemed that the asylum claim was unwarranted, as the woman had been unable to identify the men who had abducted her husband. In Brussels, the Belgian authorities refused a request for asylum from Mr Said-Magomed Khachukaev, deputy editor of The Chechen Times, and on Monday 13 deported him either to Germany or to Moscow, depending on the source.

Is the Council aware of these deportations of Chechen citizens and those of Mr Khachukaev and the mother and two children mentioned in Libération in particular? Does the Council have even a vague idea of the dangers facing Chechens expelled to Russia? Does the Council intend to adopt a common position according to which the Member States would agree not to deport Chechen refugees until the Russian authorities were able to guarantee a minimum amount of respect for basic rights in Chechnya? What initiatives does the Council plan to take to acquire the necessary means to collect ‘detailed information about the cases of civilian abductions’ (see the Council's answer to question E-0748/03 (1))? Does the Council not think that the embassies of the 15 Member States and the 10 applicant countries, the Commission Delegation in Moscow and organisations such as Amnesty International, Memorial, Human Rights Watch and Médecins du Monde could provide it with in-depth information about the abduction of civilians and, more generally, the very serious human rights violations committed in Chechnya?

1

Reply

(9 March 2004)

(9 March 2004)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is not competent to intervene in individual asylum applications in the Member States.

Regarding the adoption of a common position as referred to in the question, the Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is not, at that stage, for seen by the Council.

Finally, the Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to address directly his last question regarding the in-depths information about the abduction of civilians to the relevant authorities.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 48.

1

---
In the Matter of O.D.S.

No. COA15-1213.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2008022EN.01000802.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-262/06) (1)

1

(Telecommunications sector - Universal service and users' rights - Definition of ‘obligations’ which are to be provisionally maintained - First paragraph of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) - Tariffs for the supply of voice telephony services - Requirement for administrative authorisation)

(2008/C 22/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of the first sentence of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Meaning of ‘obligations’ to be provisionally maintained by the Member States — Pre-existing requirement for authorisation of charges for the supply of voice telephony services to end-users by an undertaking with a dominant position

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a statutory requirement for the approval of tariffs for the supply of retail voice telephony services provided by undertakings with a dominant position in that market, such as that provided for in Paragraph 25 of the Law on Telecommunications (Telekommunikationsgesetz) of 25 July 1996, enacted by national law and preceding the regulatory framework resulting from those directives, together with administrative measures confirming that requirement, must be temporarily maintained.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
----

(2004/C 65 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2528/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Council

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Body piercing

Does the Council consider it necessary to make proposals for minimum common standards for licensing and operation for the commercial provision of the services of tattooing or body piercing in the EU in order to protect the health of the general public and to avoid needless tragedies like the recent death of Daniel Hindle in Sheffield in the UK? If not, why not?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to submit proposals to the Council within the scope of the powers laid down by the Treaty.

No proposal in this area has been submitted to the Council so far.

----
# CE2004088EN.01029101.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/291 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/291

---

(2004/C 88 E/0298)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2677/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 September 2002)

Subject:   Fire safety

Subject:

What role does the Commission have in promoting best practice between Member States and their fire authorities with a view to reducing death and injury from fire?

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce new building design regulations intended to provide all EU citizens with minimum standards for protection from fire-related injury by requiring the installation of such devices as smoke detectors and sprinkler systems?

Does the Commission recognise national or regional fire brigades in each Member State as the lead bodies to deal with issues of community fire safety, and are they treated as such for the purpose of consultation about health and safety issues relating to fire?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

(15 October 2002)

The Community has no general competence in fire safety. However, the Community does contribute to fire safety through several directives and initiatives taken under different Community policies, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle.

As a direct consequence, the structure and the competences of national, regional or local fire brigades vary from one Member State to the other, and the Commission has no competence to establish common rules on which all Member States could agree.

In the area of civil protection, the Commission has taken several initiatives to allow fire brigades to identify their most urgent needs. As far as the promotion of best practices between Member States is concerned, within the Community action programme for civil protection, Sweden has recently been mandated as the lead country for a fire prevention project that aims to identify best practice between Member States.

The Commission does not have plans to make mandatory the installation of smoke detectors and sprinkler systems. In many of the Member States such provisions exist already. However, fire alarm/detection, fixed fire-fighting and fire and smoke controlproducts are covered by Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (1). Under this Directive there are common instruments for labelling the safety in case of fire characteristics of construction products. These are the ‘Euroclasses’ for reaction to and resistance to fire, which will allow the performances of products to be easily recognised in all Member States.

1

Only Member States have the prerogative to designate which bodies should deal with Community fire safety issues. However, at Community level, relevant initiatives are usually discussed with all the interested parties represented at European level.

---

(1)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Andrew Clayton LEDBETTER.

No. 426P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

David M. Black, Lincolnton, for Ledbetter, Andrew Clayton.

*473Richard A. Graham, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

E. Burke Haywood, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of December 2015 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 13th of April 2016."
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 – Germany v Commission**

**(Case T-21/06)**

State aid – Digital terrestrial television – Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg
– Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Principles of sound administration and proportionality – Rights of the defence

1.                     *State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions – Discretion of the Commission – Judicial review – Limits – Possibility of adopting guidelines
(Art. 87(3) EC) (see paras 50-51)*

2.                     *State aid – Examination by the Commission – Discretion of the Commission – Principle of sound administration – Rights of the
defence (see paras 77-79)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
In Re: Todd W. Short

46P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016

Mr. Todd Short, Pro Se.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of July 2016 by Petitioner for leave to amendment to Certificate of Service on Petitioner's Motion for Expedited Consideration of Petitioner's Writ of Certiorari Filed on 30 June 2016:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of July 2016."
# CE2004078EN.01070401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/704 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/704

---

(2004/C 78 E/0751)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0736/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject:   Building of ‘controlled tips’

Subject:

There are plans to build a series of ‘controlled tips’ for ordinary refuse at various sites in Portugal, in some cases with aid from Community funds.

What projects have already been submitted for Community funding, and what stage have these projects reached?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

(28 April 2003)

So far no request for Community Fund financing for controlled tips has been presented by Portugal.

On the question of financing for such projects from the Structural Funds, the Commission reminds the Honourable Member that under the subsidiarity principle projects are selected at national level by the managing authority for each operational programme once its strategic priorities have been approved by the Commission. Only projects costing more than EUR 50 million have to be notified to the Commission (Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1)).

1

Thus the Commission does not have prior knowledge of all projects financed from the Structural Funds and invites him to approach the Portuguese authorities for information.

---

(1)  Council Regulation 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds.

1

---
In the Matter of ZIMMERMAN, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program, Claimant-Appellant.

No. COA15-937.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part; Dismissed in part.
# C_2008223EN.01006002.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/60

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 February 2008 — Arana de la Cal v Commission

(Case F-63/05) (1)

1

(Staff - Contractual agent - Late claim - Action manifestly inadmissible)

(2008/C 223/113)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Miriam Arana de la Cal (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant, a former member of the auxiliary staff, against the decision fixing her grade and remuneration as a contract staff member and, secondly, an application for damages (formerly T-271/05)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005, p. 31 (case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-271/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

1

---
# C_2008022EN.01004201.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/42

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Angelidis v Parliament

(Case T-113/05) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Filling an A2 post - Rejection of candidature - Breach of essential procedural requirements - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2008/C 22/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Bencomo Weber, J. F. de Wachter and A. Lukošiūtė, agents)

Defendant

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament to reject the candidature of the applicant for the post of Director of the ‘Budgetary Affairs’ Directorate of the Directorate-General for Committees responsible for the internal policies of the Parliament and to appoint another candidate to the post and, second, an application for damages to compensate for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the rejection of his candidature.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 25 February 2004 appointing Mr Alfredo De Feo to the position of Director of Budgetary Affairs of the Directorate-General for Committees responsible for the internal policies of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 25 February 2004 appointing Mr Alfredo De Feo to the position of Director of Budgetary Affairs of the Directorate-General for Committees responsible for the internal policies of the European Parliament.

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

1

---
# C_2008116EN.01000802.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-417/07) (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2004/36/EC - Safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 116/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Vidal Puig, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to comply with Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 76)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.

1

---
----

|   | 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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   /s/ ROBERT P JOHNSON    |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert P. Johnson, President                  |   |
|   | AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.                 |   |
|   | Managing General Partner                      |   |
|   | May 14, 2014                             |   |
|   |                                          |   |
|   |                                          |   |
|   |                                          |   |
|   |   /s/ PATRICK W KEENE                    |   |
|   | Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer     |   |
|   | AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.                 |   |
|   | Managing General Partner                      |   |
|   | May 14, 2014                             |   |

----
# C_2008128EN.01002706.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/27

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-218/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 128/55)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---