alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017443EN.01101401.xml

| 22.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/1014 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/1014

---

P7_TA(2014)0445

EC-Albania Stabilisation and Association Agreement (Protocol to take account of the accession of Croatia) ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 April 2014 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of the Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (14783/2013 — C7-0075/2014 — 2013/0311(NLE))

(Consent)

(2017/C 443/113)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (14783/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (14783/2013),

| — | having regard to the Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (14782/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (14782/2013),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217, in conjunction with point (a)(i) of Article 218(6) and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7–0075/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217, in conjunction with point (a)(i) of Article 218(6) and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7–0075/2014),

| — | having regard to Rule 81(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 81(2), Rule 90(7) and Rule 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 81(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 81(2), Rule 90(7) and Rule 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0266/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0266/2014),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to conclusion of the Protocol;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Albania. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Albania.

---
### §503.1 Annual assessment of budget with respect to electromagnetic spectrum operations capabilities

At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees an assessment by the Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations Executive Committee as to whether sufficient funds are requested in such budget for anticipated activities in such fiscal year for each of the following:

(1) The development of an electromagnetic battle management capability for joint electromagnetic spectrum operations.

(2) The establishment and operation of associated joint electromagnetic spectrum operations cells.

(Added Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title XVI, §1682(a), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 615.)

1 Another section 503 is set out in chapter 31 of this title.
# C_2013054EN.01000901.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/9

---

Publication pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions

2013/C 54/08

IN THE MATTER OF IRISH BANK RESOLUTION CORPORATION LIMITED (IN SPECIAL LIQUIDATION) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE IRISH BANK RESOLUTION CORPORATION ACT, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF IRISH BANK RESOLUTION CORPORATION LIMITED (IN SPECIAL LIQUIDATION) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE IRISH BANK RESOLUTION CORPORATION ACT, 2013

NOTICE is hereby given that on 7 February 2013, the Minister for Finance, Mr Michael Noonan T.D., made an order pursuant to Section 4 of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Act 2013 of Ireland (the ‘Act’) providing for the winding-up of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation) under the provisions of the Act. Pursuant to the same order, Mr Kieran Wallace and Mr Eamonn Richardson of KPMG, 1 Stokes Place, St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, Ireland, were also appointed joint special liquidators of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation) with all of the duties and powers conferred upon them by the Act.

The winding-up of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation) is a winding-up procedure for the purposes of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001.

| Kieran Wallace and Eamonn Richardson |
| --- |
| Special liquidators of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation) |
| KPMG |
| 1 Stokes Place |
| St. Stephen's Green |
| Dublin 2 |
| IRELAND |

Kieran Wallace and Eamonn Richardson

Special liquidators of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation)

KPMG

1 Stokes Place

St. Stephen's Green

Dublin 2

IRELAND

---
### §7218. Duties: warrant officers; limitations

Under regulations prescribed by the President, a warrant officer may be assigned to perform duties that necessarily include those normally performed by a commissioned officer.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 203, §3548; renumbered §7218, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §808(b)(6), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1838.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3548 | 10:593 (1st sentence). | Aug. 21, 1941, ch. 384, §4 (1st sentence), 55 Stat. 653. |

10:593 (1st sentence, less provisos) is omitted as superseded by section 3012(e) of this title. 10:593 (last proviso) is omitted as covered by section 936(a)(4) of this title (article 136(a)(4) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice). The words "may be assigned" are substituted for the words "shall be vested with power to".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7218, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 445; Pub. L. 89–718, §8(a), Nov. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1117, repealed by Pub. L. 97–295, §6(b), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1314, authorized Secretary of Navy to give special recognition to members of naval service for excellence, special service and good conduct in naval service, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 89–529, §1(3), Aug. 11, 1966, 80 Stat. 339; Pub. L. 97–295, §1(46), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1298.

Prior sections 7219 to 7221 were renumbered sections 8619 to 8621 of this title, respectively.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 3548 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
### §4815. Unfunded priorities of the national technology and industrial base: annual report

(a) Annual Report.—Not later than 10 days after the date on which the budget of the President for a fiscal year is submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment shall submit to the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the congressional defense committees a report on the unfunded priorities to address gaps or vulnerabilities in the national technology and industrial base.

(b) Elements.—

(1) In general.—Each report under subsection (a) shall specify, for each unfunded priority covered by such report, the following:

(A) A summary description of such priority, including the objectives to be achieved if such priority is funded (whether in whole or in part).

(B) The additional amount of funds recommended in connection with the objectives under subparagraph (A).

(C) Account information with respect to such priority, including the following (as applicable):

(i) Line Item Number (LIN) for applicable procurement accounts.

(ii) Program Element (PE) number for applicable research, development, test, and evaluation accounts.

(iii) Sub-activity group (SAG) for applicable operation and maintenance accounts.

(2) Prioritization of priorities.—Each report shall present the unfunded priorities covered by such report in order of urgency of priority.

(c) Unfunded Priority Defined.—In this section, the term "unfunded priority", in the case of a fiscal year, means a program, activity, or mission requirement of the national technology and industrial base that—

(1) is not funded in the budget of the President for the fiscal year as submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31;

(2) is necessary to address gaps or vulnerabilities in the national technology and industrial base; and

(3) would have been recommended for funding through the budget referred to in paragraph (1) if—

(A) additional resources had been available for the budget to fund the program, activity, or mission requirement; or

(B) the program, activity, or mission requirement had emerged before the budget was formulated.

(Added Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title VIII, §846(c)(1), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1504, §2504a; renumbered §4815, Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1867(b), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4281.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 renumbered section 2504a of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2021 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 116–283 effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tabitha Lawrence, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 625]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Giardino, J.), rendered April 22, 2005, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant, charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, pleaded guilty, as a second felony offender, to the reduced charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement which included the waiver of a right to appeal. Defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea, submitted on her behalf by a second assigned counsel after she expressed dissatisfaction with her original representation, was denied by County Court which subsequently imposed the agreed-upon sentence of 2 to 4 years in prison. On this appeal, defendant maintains that County Court’s denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty plea was improper because, as a result of her mental condition, she did not enter into the plea knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. She likewise maintains that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

“The determination of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea lies within the sound discretion of the trial court” *(People v Morris,*30 AD3d 632, 632 [2006] [citations omitted]). Notably, the denial of such a motion is not an abuse of discretion, despite defendant’s mental health condition, where the trial court has been aware of that condition throughout the proceedings and “conducts a thorough inquiry ... to establish that, despite those deficiencies, defendant understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea and the motion to withdraw is based upon defendant’s unsubstantiated claims of lack of comprehension” *(People v D'Adamo,*281 AD2d 751, 752 [2001], *lv denied*98 NY2d 730 [2002]).

*985Here, notwithstanding the submission by defendant of documentary evidence attesting to her treatment for bipolar disorder, a review of the record reveals that County Court had been apprised of defendant’s personal problems prior to its execution of a meticulous plea allocution, during which it acknowledged defendant’s earlier discomfort with the proposed plea agreement and repeatedly ascertained her willingness to knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily enter into such. Furthermore, despite defendant’s protestations to the contrary, inasmuch as the record indicates that defense counsel competently protected her interests and, indeed, negotiated a very advantageous plea that she herself described as an “excellent offer,” she cannot be said to have been deprived of meaningful representation *(see People v La Porte,*31 AD3d 800, 801 [2006]).

Carpinello, J.R, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
H. Res. 350

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 9, 1999.

Whereas the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act

of 1993 effectively lifted the ban on federally funded research involving the transplantation of baby body parts,

and such Act made it a Federal felony for any person to

knowingly, for ‘‘valuable consideration,’’ purchase or sell

baby body parts (with a term of imprisonment of up to

10 years and with fines of up to $250,000 in the case

of an individual and $500,000 in the case of an organization);

Whereas private companies have sought to meet the demand

by both public and private research facilities by providing

baby body parts;

Whereas the definition of ‘‘valuable consideration’’ under the

National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993

does not include reasonable payments associated with the

transportation, implantation, processing, preservation,

quality control, or storage of baby body parts; and

Whereas private companies appear to believe that the definition of ‘‘valuable consideration’’ allows them to circumvent Federal law and avoid felony charges with impunity while trafficking in baby body parts for profit: Now,

therefore, be it
2

•HRES 350 EH

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Congress should exercise oversight responsibilities and conduct hearings, and take appropriate steps if necessary, concerning private companies that are involved in the

trafficking of baby body parts for profit.

Attest:

Clerk.
### EERE

- 2012

- BT

- TP

- 0016

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS: TEST PROCEDURES FOR REFRIGERATORS,

REFRIGERATOR

- FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20585 Thursday, July 25, 2013

9 a.m.

– 4 p.m. EDT, Room 8E

- 089

Purpose During this meeting the Department of Energy (DOE) will present the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator

- freezers, and freezers. This meeting is

inte nded to familiarize interested stakeholders with DOE’s statutory requirements and proposed test procedures for these products.

Agenda

9:00

- 9:05 am Welcome

9:05

- 9: 15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda Review Doug Brookman

9:15

- 9:25 am Intr oduction and Background Doug Brookman

9 : 25

- 9 : 35 am Regulatory History and Products Covered by the Test Procedure Changes

Lucas Adin

9 : 3 5

– 1 0 : 30 am Test Procedure Amendments : Icemaking

Andrew Jean

- Louis

1 0 : 3 0

- 1 0 : 4 5 am Break

10:45

– 11:45 am Test Procedure Amendments: Icemaking, continued

Andrew Jean

- Louis

11: 4 5 am

- 12: 3 0 pm Test Procedure Amendments, continued Detlef Westphalen

12: 3 0

- 1: 3 0 pm Break for Lunch (on your own)

1: 3 0

- 2 : 1 5 pm Test Procedure Amendments, continued Detlef Westpha len

### EERE

- 2012

- BT

- TP

- 0016

2 : 1 5

- 2 : 30 pm Test Procedure Amendments, continued

Lucas Adin

2:30

- 2 : 4 5 pm Other Issues Under Consideration

Lucas Adin

2:45

- 3:00 pm Break

3 : 00

- 3: 30 pm Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements Detlef Westphalen

3: 30

- 4: 0 0 pm Conclusions and Closing Remarks Doug Brookman

4: 0 0 pm Adjourn
#### Moses Green, Appellant, v New York City Police Department, Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 9]

*263Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, challenging respondent’s determination terminating petitioner’s employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s argument that his termination was improper because respondent failed to provide him with a five-day command notification letter or a follow-up 20-day letter is not properly before us, since defendant never raised this issue at the administrative level *(see Matter of Yarbough v Franco,*95 NY2d 342, 347 [2000]). Moreover, “[¡judicial review of administrative determinations pursuant to CPLR article 78 is limited to questions of law. Unpreserved issues are not issues of law. Accordingly, the Appellate Division ha[s] no discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction in reviewing the agency’s determination” *(Matter of Khan v New York State Dept. of Health,*96 NY2d 879, 880 [2001] [citation omitted]). This includes petitioner’s due process arguments *(see Matter of Walker v Franco,*96 NY2d 891, 892 [2001]; *Matter of Huang Sheng Ku v Dana Alexander, Inc.,*12 AD3d 988, 989 [2004]). In any event, petitioner has demonstrated no substantial prejudice by the alleged failure *(Guangdong Chems. Import & Export Corp. v United States,*414 F Supp 2d 1300, 1306 [Ct Intl Trade 2006]). These letters are meant, essentially, to provide petitioner only with notice and an opportunity to be heard, which petitioner was unquestionably granted here. Even if the 20-day letter is read to afford petitioner an opportunity to return to work and submit documentation validating his absences for alleged illness, he was given that opportunity at the administrative hearing to provide such necessary documentation but was unable to do so. Concur—Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
From: Janis Hudson

To: Wiley, Adina

Cc: Mike Wilson

Subject: Notice of Amendment Applications

Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:55:54 PM

You asked that TCEQ provide EPA with data regarding how many permit amendment

applications (excluding flexible permit amendment applications) were subject to public

notice requirements.

The table below provides the information that the TCEQ’s Air Permits Division has

tracked with regard to the number of non-flexible permit amendment applications

received since the commission adopted a rule in 2001 (renumbered in 2010) to

develop the criteria for de minimis and insignificant thresholds, and how many of

those were subject to notice. 

Amendment applications Went to Public Notice

FY02-FY13 5378 2189

*FY is September 1 – August 31.
**MIDLAND CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION****EXHIBIT 11****STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE**           Three Months Ended   September 30,   2007  2006          Net Income $191,610  $221,240                 Weighted average common shares outstandingfor basic computation  372,600   372,600                 Basic earnings per share $0.51  $0.59                 Weighted average common shares outstandingfor basic computation  372,600   372,600          Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effectof stock options  —   —                 Weighted average common shares and equivalentsOutstanding for diluted computation  372,600   372,600                 Diluted earnings per share $0.51  $.59
#### In the Matter of Tibor Simon, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 522]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Transit Authority dated July 18, 2003 which sustained disciplinary charges against the petitioner and terminated his employment, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated February 10, 2005, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We affirm the denial of the petition and the dismissal of the proceeding on a different ground than that articulated by the Supreme Court. The proceeding should have been dismissed on the ground that it was barred by the four-month statute of limitations applicable to proceedings brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 *(see.*CPLR 217 [1]). A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 must be commenced within four months from the time the determination being challenged becomes final and binding *(Matter of De Milio v Borghard,*55 NY2d 216, 219-220 [1982]). A determination becomes final and binding when it has an impact on the petitioner *(see Matter of Edmead v McGuire,*67 NY2d 714, 716 [1986]).

Here, the petitioner is challenging the determination of the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the Transit Authority) dated July 18, 2003 sustaining charges of sexual harassment and upholding the penalty of dismissal from employment. The petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding on September 1, 2004 more than four months after the date of the determination. The petitioner contends that he did not receive a copy of the determination until June 2004. However, in his complaint in an action brought against the Transit Authority in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County on January 15, 2004 the petitioner requested payment for accrued vacation and compensatory time upon dismissal from employment, with interest from July 31, 2003. Therefore, the petitioner was certainly aware of the Transit Authority’s determination, and acknowledged its impact on him in January 2004 more than four months prior to commencing this proceeding in September 2004. Accordingly, the petition should have been denied and the proceeding dismissed as time-barred.

The parties’ remaining contentions need not be reached in light of this determination. Adams, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
§ 166.806 What actions does the BIA take against trespassers? If the trespasser fails to take the corrective action specified by us, we may take one or more of the following actions, as appropriate: ( a ) Seize, impound, sell or dispose of unauthorized livestock or other property involved in the trespass. We may keep such property we seize for use as evidence.
( b ) Assess penalties, damages, and costs, under § 166.812 of this subpart.