alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005093EN.01001402.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München by order of that court of 1 February 2005 in Household of Jörg and Stefanie Wollny v Finanzgericht Landshut

(Case C-72/05)

(2005/C 93/26)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht München (Germany) of 1 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Household of Jörg and Stefanie Wollny and Finanzgericht Landshut on the following question:

| | How is the term ‘full cost’ in Article 11(A)(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EC (1) to be interpreted? Does the full cost for the privately used dwelling in a building forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of a business comprise, in addition to recurring expenses, annual depreciation for the wear and tear of buildings in accordance with the applicable national rules and/or the annual proportion of the acquisition and production cost - calculated on the basis of the applicable national period for adjustment of deductions – that has given rise to a right to deduct value added tax? |
| --- | --- |

How is the term ‘full cost’ in Article 11(A)(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EC (1) to be interpreted? Does the full cost for the privately used dwelling in a building forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of a business comprise, in addition to recurring expenses, annual depreciation for the wear and tear of buildings in accordance with the applicable national rules and/or the annual proportion of the acquisition and production cost - calculated on the basis of the applicable national period for adjustment of deductions – that has given rise to a right to deduct value added tax?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.

1

---
# Official Journal C 3/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 3 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 646 January 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 3

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 646 January 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 3/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10014 — LGP/Centerbridge/Community Psychiatry) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2021/C 3/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10071 — De Agostini Group/Foodiverse/Alnut) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2021/C 3/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10042 — Vista Equity Partners/Francisco Partners Management/SmartBear Software) (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2021/C 3/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9757 — Providence/VOO/Brutélé) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2021/C 3/05 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9907 — Exclusive Networks/Veracomp Business) (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2021/C 3/06 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9669 — PPF Group/Central European Media Enterprises) (
  1
  ) | 6 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 3/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10014 — LGP/Centerbridge/Community Psychiatry) (
  1
  )

1

1

2021/C 3/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10071 — De Agostini Group/Foodiverse/Alnut) (
  1
  )

1

2

2021/C 3/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10042 — Vista Equity Partners/Francisco Partners Management/SmartBear Software) (
  1
  )

1

3

2021/C 3/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9757 — Providence/VOO/Brutélé) (
  1
  )

1

4

2021/C 3/05

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9907 — Exclusive Networks/Veracomp Business) (
  1
  )

1

5

2021/C 3/06

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9669 — PPF Group/Central European Media Enterprises) (
  1
  )

1

6

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 3/07 | Euro exchange rates — 5 January 2021 | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 3/07

Euro exchange rates — 5 January 2021

7

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| | Corrigendum to Euro exchange rates – 29 December 2020( OJ C 452, 30.12.2020 ) | 8 |

Corrigenda

Corrigendum to Euro exchange rates – 29 December 2020( OJ C 452, 30.12.2020 )

( OJ C 452, 30.12.2020 )

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3957 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 218–10 Merrick Boulevard in Springfield Gardens, New York, as the ‘‘Cynthia Jenkins Post Office 

Building’’. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3957 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CYNTHIA JENKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 218–10 Merrick Boulevard in 

4 Springfield Gardens, New York, shall be known and des5 ignated as the ‘‘Cynthia Jenkins Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Cynthia Jenkins Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

October 1, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14114

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 06-00043-CR-WCO-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff–Appellee, 

versus 

JOHNNY CLAUDE SLATON, 

a.k.a. Johnny Claude Cooper, 

a.k.a. Johnny Cooper, etc., 

Defendant–Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(October 1, 2008)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Johnny Slaton appeals his low-end, guideline range 188-month sentence for

being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, Slaton requested that the

district court exercise its authority to impose a sentence that would run concurrent

to his undischarged state court sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, but the

district court refused to designate the sentence as concurrent or consecutive based

on its conclusion that the Bureau of Prisons, not the court, was authorized to make

the determination and that § 5G1.3 did not apply. As imposed, Slaton’s sentence

runs consecutive to his state court sentence by statute.

Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that

the district court erred in its failure to recognize its authority to impose Slaton’s

sentence as running concurrent to his state sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3584 and in

its refusal to consider subparagraph (c) of § 5G1.3 in fashioning Slaton’s sentence. 

Under § 3584, the district court may order multiple terms of imprisonment

imposed at different times to run concurrently. 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). In

determining whether to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence, the district

court must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which incorporate

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. See United States v. Ballard, 6 F.3d 1502, 1505–06 (11th Cir.

1993).

Accordingly, we vacate Slaton’s sentence and remand his case to the district
3

court for resentencing.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4336 

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to the highway safety 

improvement program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2014 

Mr. MICHAUD (for himself and Mr. RIBBLE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to 

the highway safety improvement program, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Local Road Safety Act 

5 of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) STATE STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN.— 

8 Section 148(a)(12) of title 23, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) in subparagraph (A)— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4336 IH

1 (A) in clause (ix) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (B) by redesignating clause (x) as clause 

4 (xi); and 

5 (C) by inserting after clause (ix) the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(x) private sector experts in the field 

8 of roadway safety infrastructure; and’’; 

9 and 

10 (2) in subparagraph (E) by inserting ‘‘, includ11 ing the results of any strategic highway safety plan 

12 developed by a county or local government entity or 

13 regional transportation planning organization’’ after 

14 ‘‘processes’’. 

15 (b) SPECIAL RULES.—Section 148(g) of title 23, 

16 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

17 following: 

18 ‘‘(3) COUNTY AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION

19 AGENCIES.—Each fiscal year, a State shall provide 

20 to county and local transportation agencies, from 

21 amounts apportioned to that State under section 

22 104(b)(3) in that fiscal year, amounts that the State 

23 determines are necessary to assist such agencies to 

24 address significant safety needs, and high fatality 

25 segments, of non-State-owned public roads and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4336 IH

1 roads on tribal land identified in a State strategic 

2 highway safety plan.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1





                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 333-31287) and Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-96624, 333-48597,
333-52927 and 333-51884) of our report dated March 16, 2001, with respect to the
financial statements of Net4Music Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form
10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 6, 2001
Paul FRAMPTON v. The UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA and The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

No. 248P15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Barry Nakell, Attorney at Law, for Frampton, Paul.

Kimberly D. Potter, Special Deputy Attorney General, for University of North Carolina At Chapel Hill.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of September 2017 by Plaintiff 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 1st of November 2017."
# CE2004088EN.01047601.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/476 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/476

---

(2004/C 88 E/0488)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3859/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Funding of small Tacis Programme projects

Subject:

Having regard to the fact that the percentage share of funding allocated to small projects under the Tacis programme increased by 15 % in 2002, could the Commission state how many small projects received funding, and what amounts of money were involved? Was the successful outcome of the projects verified?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

(4 March 2004)

The Commission understands that the Honourable Member is referring to the two principal types of ‘small projects’ which exist under Tacis, namely the Tacis Cross-Border Co-operation (CBC) Programme Small Project Facility and the Civil Society component of the Institution-Building Partnership Programme. With reference to the Tacis Cross-Border Co-operation Programme Small Project Facility, an allocation of EUR 6,7 million was made under the Tacis CBC Action Programme 2002. This resulted in a total number of 32 small projects being recommended for funding and contracted. In addition, 12 micro projects (less than EUR 50 000 each) were also contracted. The last evaluation round for the micro-project component has recently been completed. The contracts for the micro-projects selected will be concluded in the coming weeks.

As regards the Institution-Building Partnership Programme, the total amount allocated to the envelope for Support to Civil Society and Local Initiatives under AP 2002 was EUR 11,7 million. A total of 62 projects were recommended for funding and 61 were contracted by December 2003.

In both cases, the first projects began only recently, hence it is too early to assess the outcome at this stage. Projects will be subject to monitoring and supervision by the Delegations.

---
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


Board of Directors
DO Group, Inc.
Elkhart, Indiana

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of DO Group, Inc. and
Subsidiary as of March 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of income and accumulated deficit and cash flows for the years then
ended (which do not appear herein).  Those financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on those financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of DO Group,
Inc. and Subsidiary as of March 31, 2000 and 1999, and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.




                                        Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP

Elkhart, Indiana
June 23, 2000
# Official Journal C 253/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 253 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6428 June 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 253

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6428 June 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 253/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Supplement 2021/7 (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2021/C 253/02 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Supplement 2021/7 (
  1
  ) | 28 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 253/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Supplement 2021/7 (
  1
  )

1

1

2021/C 253/02

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Supplement 2021/7 (
  1
  )

1

28

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3996 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3996

  To prohibit the closure or reduced operation of military commissary 
           stores and exchange stores before January 1, 2017.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2014

  Mr. Griffin of Arkansas (for himself, Mr. Crenshaw, Mrs. Miller of 
  Michigan, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Long, Mr. 
   Whitfield, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Yoder, Mr. Garamendi, and Mr. Yoho) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the closure or reduced operation of military commissary 
           stores and exchange stores before January 1, 2017.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Save our Military Shopping Benefits 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CLOSURE OR REDUCED OPERATION OF COMMISSARY 
              STORES AND EXCHANGE STORES.

    (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding subsections (c) and (d) of 
section 2482 of title 10, United States Code, or any other provision of 
law, the Secretary of Defense may not--
            (1) close any commissary store or exchange store located 
        within the United States; or
            (2) develop or implement any plan that would result in the 
        closure of all commissaries located in the United States as 
        part of a cost-saving effort.
    (b) Definition of Close.--In this section, the term ``close'' 
includes any action that has the effect of--
            (1) reducing the operating hours or size of a commissary 
        store or exchange store below fiscal year 2014 levels; or
            (2) changing the location of a commissary store or exchange 
        store.
    (c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a change in the 
size or location of a commissary store or exchange store if the 
Secretary of Defense determines that the change is required for 
upgrading or modifying an existing structure for safety or health 
reasons.
    (d) Duration.--The prohibition imposed by subsection (a) expires 
January 1, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
In re: Appeal of the Fee Award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission in N.C.I.C. Nos. W82780 & W98474

Keith SAUNDERS v. ADP TOTALSOURCE FI XI, INC., Employer, and Liberty Mutual/Helmsman Management Services, Carrier

No. 399P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Mr. Paul C. Lawrence, Attorney at Law, For ADP TotalSource Fi Xi, Inc., et al.

Ms. Kari L. Schultz, Attorney at Law, For ADP TotalSource Fi Xi, Inc., et al.

Mr. M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, For ADP TotalSource Fi Xi, Inc., et al.

Mr. Henry E. Teich, Attorney at Law, For Saunders, Keith.

Mr. Mark T. Sumwalt, Attorney at Law, For Saunders, Keith.

Ms. Lauren H. Walker, Attorney at Law, For State.

Mr. Vernon Sumwalt, Attorney at Law, For State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Petition for Discretionary Review, Plaintiff's Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed as to issue number three only. The petition is denied as to any remaining issues:

"Spec Order by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4101 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that a TRICARE beneficiary receives written notice of any change to benefits received by 

the beneficiary under the TRICARE program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

Mrs. ELLMERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that a 

TRICARE beneficiary receives written notice of any 

change to benefits received by the beneficiary under the 

TRICARE program, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Timely Information 

5 Management Enforcement Act’’ or the ‘‘TIME Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4101 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVISION OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF CHANGE TO 

2 TRICARE BENEFITS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 55 of title 10, United 

4 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1097c 

5 the following new section: 

6 ‘‘§ 1097d. TRICARE program: notice of change to ben7 efits 

8 ‘‘(a) PROVISION OF NOTICE.—(1) If the Secretary 

9 changes any benefits provided by the TRICARE program 

10 to covered beneficiaries, the Secretary shall provide indi11 viduals described in paragraph (2) with written notice ex12 plaining such changes. 

13 ‘‘(2) The individuals described by this paragraph are 

14 covered beneficiaries and providers participating in the 

15 TRICARE program who may be affected by a change cov16 ered by a notification under paragraph (1). 

17 ‘‘(3) The Secretary shall provide notice under para18 graph (1) through both mail and electronic means. 

19 ‘‘(b) TIMING OF NOTICE.—The Secretary shall pro20 vide notice under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) by the 

21 earlier of the following dates: 

22 ‘‘(1) The date that the Secretary determines 

23 would afford individuals described in paragraph (2) 

24 of such subsection adequate time to understand and 

25 respond to the change covered by the notification. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4101 IH

1 ‘‘(2) 90 days before the date on which the 

2 change covered by the notification becomes effective. 

3 ‘‘(c) DELEGATION.—The Secretary may not delegate 

4 the authority under this section to any individual who is 

5 not an officer or employee of the Federal Government.’’. 

6 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

7 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

8 after the item relating to section 1097c the following new 

9 item: 

‘‘1097d. TRICARE program: notice of change to benefits.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Jacqueline Renee CROCKER, Petitioner, v. Transylvania County Department of Social Services Director Tracy JONES, Respondent.

No. COA16-875

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 21, 2017

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jason Lewis RIGGINS

No. COA17-571

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

AFFIRMED.
NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Lillian Dianne HULL and Annitta B. Crook

No. 45A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 2, 2018

Caudle & Spears, P.A., Charlotte, by Harold C. Spears and Christopher P. Raab, for plaintiff-appellant.

Doran Law Offices, Salisbury, by Michael Doran, for defendant-appellees.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. This matter is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.