alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013115EN.01000201.xml

| 23.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/2

---

Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2013/182/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya apply

2013/C 115/02

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities who appear in Annexes II and IV to Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2013/182/CFSP (1), and in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.

1

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be retained in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/137/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 7 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 50.

1

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Secretary of State John Kerry on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

By Secretary of State John KerryWashington, D.C.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More Articles/News
#### Elias Ray *v.*George W. Haines.

*Minor—not bound by Ms contract.*Where a minor contracted to work nine months, but worked one month and a half, and quit, *it wasJield,*he was not bound by his contract, and could recover from his employer the value of the services' rendered.

*486Appeal from the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. Samuel L. Richmond, Judge, presiding.

The opinion sufficiently states the case.

Messrs. Ingersoll & McCune, for the appellant.

Mr. W. G. Randall and Messrs. Bangs & Shaw, for the appellee,

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

In this case a minor had contracted to work for the defendant nine months, but left after working six weeks. Being a minor, his contract was not obligatory upon him,- and he was entitled to recover from his employer the value of the services rendered. This value the court inferred from the amount admitted by the defendant to have been due the plaintiff when he left, as wages, and we are not inclined to reverse because the proof was not more positive.

*Judgment affirmed. .*
Docket Number: FAA-2012-0332
## **EXHIBIT31.2**

## **CERTIFICATION**

I, David A. Chaput, Chief Financial Officer, certifythat:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof The Doe Run Resources Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)         Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: September 14, 2006

 
| By:                            | /s/ David A.  Chaput |   |
|--------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
| David A. Chaput                |
| Chief Financial  Officer       |
| (Principal  Financial Officer) |

 

----
#### § 166.226 May the holder of a leasehold mortgage assign the leasehold interest after a sale or foreclosure of an approved encumbrance?

Yes. The holder of a leasehold mortgage may assign a leasehold interest obtained by a sale or foreclosure of an approved encumbrance without our approval if the assignee agrees in writing to be bound by the terms of the permit. A permit may provide the Indian landowners with a right of first refusal on the conveyance of the permit interest (leasehold).
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40255 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
PEDRO RAMIREZ

- SOTO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12

- CR

- 1755

- 1

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedro Ramirez

- Soto (Ramirez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ramirez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 17, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40255 Document: 00512473790 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013No. 13

- 40255

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40255 Document: 00512473790 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
#### § 173.16 Reserved area, Coolidge Dam.

No permit for any commercial business or other activity (except boating concessions confined to the Soda Spring Canyon) shall be issued to any applicant to operate within a radius of three-fourths of a mile from the center of the Coolidge Dam, Arizona.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00057-CV

Billy Wayne Duffie, Jr., Appellant

v.

Taylor M. Days, Appellee

FROM THE 169TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY 

NO. 21DFAM328489, THE HONORABLE CARI L. STARRITT-BURNETT, 

JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on March 21, 

2022. On April 18, 2022, we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been filed due to his

failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. 

The notice requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status 

report regarding this appeal by April 28, 2022. Further, the notice advised appellant that his

failure to comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of 

prosecution. On April 21, 2022, appellant requested more time to file. On May 23, 2022, we 

sent a second notice that no clerk’s record had been filed due to his failure to pay or make 

arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The second notice 

requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report 
2

regarding this appeal by June 2, 2022. To date, appellant has not filed a status report or 

otherwise responded to this Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed.

If a trial-court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to 

pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court 

may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established 

that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. Because 

appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s 

record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

__________________________________________

Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: June 24, 2022
### **CHAPTER 895—ISSUE OF SERVICEABLE MATERIAL OTHER THAN TO ARMED FORCES**

Sec.
8942.
Rifles and ammunition for target practice: educational institutions having corps of midshipmen.
8943.
Supplies: military instruction camps.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(e)(4), (f)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1838, redesignated chapter 667 of this title as this chapter and items 7912 and 7913 as 8942 and 8943, respectively.

**2013**—Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title V, §552(c)(3), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1741, struck out item 7911 "Arms, tentage, and equipment: educational institutions not maintaining units of R.O.T.C."
### **CHAPTER 965—ISSUE OF SERVICEABLE MATERIAL TO ARMED FORCES**

Sec.
9561.
Rations.
9562.
Clothing.
9563.
Clothing: replacement when destroyed to prevent contagion.
9564.
Navy and Marine Corps: camp equipment and transportation; when on shore duty with Air Force.
9565.
Colors, standards, and guidons of demobilized organizations: disposition.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §806(d)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1833, redesignated chapter 935 of this title as this chapter.
#### Adam N. Kunz, Respondent, v. Astoria Silk Works, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present—Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
### §2833. Family housing support

Amounts authorized by law for support of military family housing include amounts for—

(1) operating expenses;

(2) leasing expenses;

(3) maintenance of real property expenses;

(4) payments of principal and interest on mortgage debts incurred; and

(5) payments of mortgage insurance premiums authorized under section 222 1 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715m).

(Added Pub. L. 99–167, title VIII, §804(b)(1), Dec. 3, 1985, 99 Stat. 987.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 222 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715m), referred to in par. (5), was repealed by Pub. L. 110–289, div. B, title I, §2120(a)(5), July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2835.

1 See References in Text note below.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Indo-Pacific Component Commanders Stress Importance of Partners

By xxxxxJim Garamone,DOD News

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
EXHIBIT 35.1

VW Credit, Inc. Servicer Compliance Statement Under Section 3.9 of the Sale and Servicing

Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB





VOLKSWAGEN AUTO LOAN ENHANCED TRUST 2012-1

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of VW Credit, Inc. (VCI), as Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 26, 2012 (as amended and supplemented, or
otherwise modified and in effect from time to time, the Sale and Servicing Agreement), by and among Volkswagen Auto Loan Enhanced Trust 2012-1, as Issuer, Volkswagen Auto Lease/Loan Underwritten Funding, LLC as Seller, VW Credit, Inc.,
as Servicer, and Citibank, N.A., as Indenture Trustee, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 26, 2012 through December 31, 2012, and of its performance under the Sale and
Servicing Agreement was conducted under my supervision.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects
throughout such period.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on behalf of the Servicer this
twenty-second day of March, 2013.



/s/ Dr. Christian DahlheimDr. Christian DahlheimExecutive Vice President & CFO
#### Auburn and Syracuse Electric Railroad Company, Respondent, v. Lehigh and New York Railroad Company and Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellants.

Order modified in accordance with memorandum filed with the clerk, and as so modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43128

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

DRIFTER BLAKE NIBLER

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 683

Filed: October 29, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Latah County. Hon. John R. Stegner , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years with two years determinate, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A . Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Drifter Blake Nibler pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter . Idaho Code § 18

- 4006(3)(b),

18

- 4007(3)(b) . The district court sentenced Nibler t o a unified sentence of ten years with two

years determinate

. Nibler appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by

imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of revi ew and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.2 1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Nibler ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
§ 163.14 Sale of forest products. ( a ) Consistent with the economic objectives of the tribe and with the consent of the Secretary and authorized by tribal resolution or resolution of recognized tribal government, open market sales of Indian forest products may be authorized. Such sales require consent of the authorized representatives of the tribe for the sale of tribal forest products, and the owners of a majority Indian interest on individually owned lands. Open market sales of forest products from Indian land located off reservations will be permitted with the consent of the Secretary and majority Indian interest of the beneficial Indian owner(s).
( b ) On individually owned Indian forest land not formally designated for retention in its natural state, the Secretary may, after consultation, sell the forest products without the consent of the owner(s) when in his or her judgment such action is necessary to prevent loss of value resulting from fire, insects, diseases, windthrow or other catastrophes.
( c ) Unless otherwise authorized by the Secretary, each sale of forest products having an estimated stumpage value exceeding $15,000 will not be approved until: ( 1 ) An examination of the forest products to be sold has been made by a forest officer; and
( 2 ) A report setting forth all pertinent information has been submitted to the approving officer as provided in § 163.20 of this part.
( d ) With the approval of the Secretary, authorized beneficial Indian owners who have been duly apprised as to the value of the forest products to be sold, may sell or transfer forest products for less than the appraised value.
( e ) Except as provided in § 163.14(d) of this part, in all such sales, the forest products shall be appraised and sold at stumpage rates not less than those established by the Secretary.