alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013085EN.01001401.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/14

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2013/C 85/09

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 8/20, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Synthetic fibre ropes | India | Anti-dumping duty | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1242/2010 (OJ L 338, 22.12.2010, p. 10) | 23.12.2013 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Synthetic fibre ropes

India

Anti-dumping duty

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1242/2010 (OJ L 338, 22.12.2010, p. 10)

23.12.2013

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
§ 161.200 Is an Indian agricultural resource management plan required? ( a ) Yes, Navajo Partitioned Lands must be managed in accordance with the goals and objectives in the agricultural resource management plan developed by the Navajo Nation, or by BIA in close consultation with the Navajo Nation, under the Agricultural Act.
( b ) The 10-year agricultural resource management and monitoring plan must be developed through public meetings and completed within 3 years of the initiation of the planning activity. The plan must be based on the public meeting records and existing survey documents, reports, and other research from Federal agencies, tribal community colleges, and land grant universities. When completed, the plan must: ( 1 ) Determine available agricultural resources;
( 2 ) Identify specific tribal agricultural resource goals and objectives;
( 3 ) Establish management objectives for the resources;
( 4 ) Define critical values of the tribe and its members and provide identified resource management objectives; and
( 5 ) Identify actions to be taken to reach established objectives.
( c ) Where the provisions in this subpart are inconsistent with the Navajo Nation's agricultural resource management plan, the Secretary may waive the provisions under part 1 of this title, so long as the waiver does not violate a federal statute or judicial decision or conflict with the Secretary's trust responsibility under federal law.
§ 161.712 What are the penalties, damages, and costs payable by trespassers? Trespassers on Navajo Partitioned Lands must pay the following penalties and costs: ( a ) Collection of the value of the products illegally used or removed plus a penalty of double their values;
( b ) Costs associated with any damage to Navajo Partitioned Lands and/or property;
( c ) The costs associated with enforcement of the provisions, including field examination and survey, damage appraisal, investigation assistance and reports, witness expenses, demand letters, court costs, and attorney fees;
( d ) Expenses incurred in gathering, impounding, caring for, and disposal of livestock in cases which necessitate impoundment under § 161.707; and
( e ) All other penalties authorized by law.
§ 166.100 What special tribal policies will we apply to permitting on Indian agricultural lands? ( a ) When specifically authorized by an appropriate tribal resolution establishing a general policy for permitting of Indian agricultural lands, the BIA will: ( 1 ) Waive the general prohibition against Indian operator preferences in permits advertised for bid under § 166.221 of this part, by allowing prospective Indian operators to match the highest responsible bid (unless the tribal law or leasing policy specifies some other manner in which the preference must be afforded);
( 2 ) Waive or modify the requirement that a permittee post a surety or performance bond;
( 3 ) Provide for posting of other collateral or security in lieu of surety or other bonds; and
( 4 ) Approve permits of tribally-owned agricultural lands at rates determined by the tribal governing body.
( b ) When specifically authorized by an appropriate tribal resolution establishing a general policy for permitting of Indian agricultural lands, and subject to paragraph (c) of this section, the BIA may: ( 1 ) Waive or modify any general notice requirement of federal law; and
( 2 ) Grant or approve a permit on “highly fractionated undivided heirship lands” as defined by tribal law.
( c ) The BIA may take the action specified in paragraph (b) of this section only if: ( 1 ) The tribe defines by resolution what constitutes “highly fractionated undivided heirship lands”;
( 2 ) The tribe adopts an alternative plan for notifying individual Indian landowners; and
( 3 ) The BIA's action is necessary to prevent waste, reduce idle land acreage and ensure income.
No. 9865.

#### The State of Louisiana vs. Robert Hébert.

An application for a new trial, for the purpose of proving the insanity of the accused, must be supported by evidence tending to substantiate the mental aberration of the accused, else the trial judge may decline to grant it.

APPEAL from the Seventeenth District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge. *Burgess,*J.

*M. J. Cunningham,*Attorney General, and *L. D. Beale,*District- Attorney, for the State, Appellee.

*E. W. Robertson*and *H. F. Brunet tor*Defendant and Appellant.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Watkins, J.

The accused was indicted for the larceny of a cow, anil from a verdict of guilty and sentence by the court to imprisonment at hard labor, has appealed.

He rests his claim to relief on three bills of exception.

T.

Counsel for the accused fije a motion for a new trial on the sole ground “ that since the trial of this cause, defendant has discovered evidence which he could not obtain before. That his counsel has been informed and believes that, from circumstances related, the accused has been bereft to a great extent of the exercise of his mental faculties ; that counsel is prepared to prove this and other facts by competent witnesses; that the conduct of defendant has been *so*strange and unreasonable as to induce them to believe that his intellect is seriously affected, and that he is not responsible legally for his conduct, etc.”

He requested the court to dispense the accused from making affidavit, which was permitted by the judge, and for the following reasons refused to grant the application, viz : *“*I consider the application as if sworn to; asked counsel if he desired to introduce evidence on the motion, which he *did not do ;*and after argument for plaintiff I overruled the motion.”

The conclusion and ruling of the trial judge was manifestly correct.

II.

The accused objected to the introduction on the part of the State of any evidence *tending to rebut*certain testimony elicited on cross-exam*320ination of his witnesses. Tins evidence lias not been annexed 1o the. bill, and cannot, of course, be considered. But, if we. are to consider the. abstract question of law, we hold it untenable.

III.

The accused reserved another bill of exceptions, without any evidence annexed, and of which the trial judge says in his assignment of reasons, viz: *“*The evidence offered by the State was in rebuttal of the statement made by Gamble, a witness called by defendant.”

The objection is not serious, and is completely covered by preceding paragraph.

IY.

A motion in arrest of judgment was filed *ex industria,*assigning *u*errors apparent on the face of the record,” but which are, not designated, and are *not*apparent.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Traylor Engineering Company, Respondent, v. Pioneer Iron Works, Appellant.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
#### Emily Weiss, Respondent, *v.*John L. Bader, as Administrator with the Will Annexed, etc., of Louis Bader, Deceased, Appellant.

Second Department,

February 28, 1908.

Services rendered to decedent — failure to show value.

Evidence in an action brought by a sister against the estate of her brother to recover for services rendered as a nurse, examined and *held,*insufficient to establish the value of the services.

A declaration by the decedent that he intended to leave his sister a certain legacy by will is not cogent evidence of the actual value of services rendered by her as a nurse.

Appeal by the defendant, John L. Bader, as administrator, etc., from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the plaintiff, rendered on the 30th day of January, 1907.

*Frank A.*Crowe, for the appellant.

*Frederick 3.*Maerkle, for the respondent.

Per Curiam :

This is an action by sister against the estate of her brother to recover for services as a nurse. The plaintiff elected at the trial to recover on *quantum, meruit.*The jury awarded her $500, which was reduced to $450 by the. Municipal Court justice presiding at the trial.- We'think that the evidence for the plaintiff was not sufficient to establish this value for services rendered. The justice in his charge to the jury very properly said that the testimony on this subject was *“*slight — very slight.” It appears that the plaintiff, a *496married woman, did go to live with her- brother and his family Avhen he was ailing from the diseases which finally resulted in his death, and that she did thereupon render services about the house and to him.. But it also appears that she had her keep and that of her child at his expense, -and that there were others, including nurses, who attended to the work about the house and to the care of'the ill man. She testifies that she received a present of $50 Avhicli she now elects to charge on account. Her claim as presented against the estate is for $3 a day. This taken with her keep is a liberal charge Avhen we consider the circumstances of these people, and the like services of others in the house. The plaintiff relied practically upon evidence that the decedent declared that he wished his sister to receive $500, but the indications are that he was then considering a provision for her in his will. The. declared intention of a testator with reference to his sister is not cogeht evidence of the-actual value of her services to him. While it is not entirely clear that any claim was established' by the *‘‘ very*satisfactory evidence ” required in such cases *(Matter of Milligan,*112 App. Div. 375, and cases cited), we aré not prepared to say that the case did not present a question for the jury.

The judgment must be reversed' and a new trial ordered, costs to aifide the event.

Jenks,-Hookes, GIaynob, Rich and Millee, JJ., concurred,

Judgment and order of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide' the event.
# C_2013360EN.01000101.xml

| 10.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 360/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 360/1

---

Communication from the Commission concerning the prolongation of the application of the Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation

2013/C 360/01

According to its point 10.3, second paragraph, the Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation (‘the R&D&I Framework’) (1) is applicable until 31 December 2013.

1

In its communication on EU State Aid Modernisation of 8 May 2012 (2), the Commission launched an ambitious reform programme which includes identifying common principles for assessing the compatibility of aid with the internal market. As a consequence, the various State aid guidelines and frameworks are being revised and streamlined to ensure consistency with those common principles.

2

The revision of the R&D&I Framework takes place in the context of the overall process to modernise State aid rules, and is in particular closely interlinked with the parallel development of the future General Block Exemption Regulation. In order to ensure a consistent approach across all State aid instruments, and having regard to the need for continuity and legal certainty in the treatment of State aid for research and development and innovation, the Commission has therefore decided to continue to apply the R&D&I Framework until 30 June 2014.

In the light of the extension of its period of validity, Member States may also want to prolong those aid schemes authorised by the Commission after assessment under the R&D&I Framework, and which would otherwise lapse on 31 December 2013, for a similar period. In order to reduce the related administrative burden, the prolongation of all such schemes can be subject of a single notification under the simplified procedure laid down in Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation (3).

3

---

(1)  OJ C 323, 31.12.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on EU State Aid Modernisation (SAM), COM(2012) 209 final.

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

3

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avalon Holdings Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald E. Klingle,
Chief Executive Officer of Avalon Holdings Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 Avalon Holdings Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Ronald E. Klingle  
|Ronald E. Klingle      
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 13, 2004
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 28, 2009

s0420 

# Order

April 28, 2009

137935

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137935 COA: 287053 Wayne CC: 05-004164-01-FC PAUL BURKS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 25, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EX-35.3
PHH Mortgage
(logo) PHH

2001 Bishop Gate Blvd
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054


February 28, 2013

Re: Annual Compliance Statement

Attention: Servicer Compliance Team, Stephanie White
Address:   9062 Old Annapolis Road
           MAC X2302-033N2702-011
           Columbia, MD 21045

Deal Name: Sequoia 2012-1
PHH Investor code: R87
Agreement: Mortgage Loan Flow Purchase, Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as
           of July 21, 2010 between Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporate
           and PHH Mortgage Corporation as modified by the Assignment Assumption
           and Recognition Agreement dated January 27, 2012

Dear Sir and/or Madame:

This statement of compliance is being provided in accordance with Item 1123 of
Regulation AB. The Undersigned hereby states that:

1. I am an authorized officer of PHH Mortgage Corporation (the "Servicer");

2. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from January 1, 2012
   through December 31, 2012 (the "Reporting Period") and its performance under
   the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
   all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
   throughout the Reporting Period.


By: /s/ Greg Bronczyk
Name: Greg Bronczyk
Title: Vice President


(logo) EQUAL HOUSING LENDER
EXHIBIT 32
Section 1350 Certifications

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report of Bravo! Foods International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Roy G. Warren, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                          /S/ Roy G. Warren
                                          -----------------
                                          Roy G. Warren
                                          Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2004

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report of Bravo! Foods International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Tommy E. Kee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

May 14, 2004                              /S/ Tommy E. Kee
                                          ----------------
                                          Tommy E. Kee
                                          Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 981

To redesignate the Coronado National Forest in honor of Morris K. Udall,

a former Member of the House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 1999

Mr. KOLBE (for himself, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. STUMP, Mr.

SALMON, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, and Mr. UDALL of New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To redesignate the Coronado National Forest in honor of

Morris K. Udall, a former Member of the House of

Representatives.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF CORONADO NATIONAL

4 FOREST, ARIZONA, IN HONOR OF MORRIS K.

5 UDALL.

6 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The Coronado National For7 est in the State of Arizona is hereby redesignated as the

8 ‘‘Morris K. Udall National Forest’’ in honor of former

9 Representative Morris K. Udall.
2

•HR 981 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference to the Coronado

2 National Forest in any law, regulation, map, document,

3 record, or other paper of the United States shall be consid4 ered to be a reference to the Morris K. Udall National

5 Forest.

Æ
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of General Metals
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Daniel Forbush, the Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated: December 11, 2007.



/s/ Daniel
Forbush
Daniel Forbush Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer
and Principal Accounting Officer)

---