alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006212EN.01002501.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/25

---

Action brought on 19 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-313/06)

(2006/C 212/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Lawunmi and D. Recchia, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery or, in any case, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery or, in any case, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of that directive.

1

| — | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2004/26/EC into national law expired on 20 May 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 146, p. 1.

1

---
#### § 213.3 No Government employee shall acquire leases.

No lease, assignment thereof, or interest therein will be approved to any employee or employees of the U.S. Government, whether connected with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or otherwise, and no employee of the Department of the Interior shall be permitted to acquire any interest in such leases covering restricted Indian lands by ownership of stock in corporations having leases or in any other manner.

(R.S. 2078; 25 U.S.C. 68)
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

March 09, 2007

Ms. Barbara E. Rosenberg

Assistant City Attorney

1500 Marilla Street, Room 7B North 

Dallas, TX 75201

Mr. Robert C. Lyon

Robert Lyon & Associates

3301 Century Drive, Suite A

Rowlett, TX 75088

Mr. Charles W. McGarry

Law Office of Charles McGarry

701 Commerce Street, Suite 400

Dallas, TX 75202

RE:Case Number:  05-0973

Court of Appeals Number:  05-04-01368-CV

Trial Court Number:  DV-03-06498-L

Style:CITY OF DALLAS

v.

DORA SAUCEDO-FALLS, ET AL.

Dear Counsel:

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court and issued the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 05-0973Page 1**
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Legal Resources 
-  Code of Federal Regulations 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Code of Federal Regulations

You can find PBGC Regulations (29 CFR, Chapter XL) on the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.

The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) is a currently updated version of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). It is not an official legal edition of the CFR. The e-CFR is an editorial compilation of CFR material and Federal Register amendments produced by the National Archives and Records Administration's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) and the Government Publishing Office. The OFR updates the material in the e-CFR on a daily basis. The current update status appears at the top of all e-CFR web pages.

PBGC takes no responsibility for the content of other websites.

September 13, 2019
H. Res. 409

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 1, 2000.

Whereas America’s Catholic schools are internationally acclaimed for their academic excellence, but provide students more than a superior scholastic education;

Whereas Catholic schools ensure a broad, values-added education emphasizing the lifelong development of moral, intellectual, physical, and social values in America’s young

people;

Whereas the total Catholic school student enrollment for the

1998–1999 academic year was 2,646,844, the total number of Catholic schools is 8,217, and the student-teacher

ratio is less than 17 to 1;

Whereas Catholic schools provide more than $17,200,000,000

a year in savings to the Nation based on the average

public school per pupil cost;

Whereas Catholic schools teach a diverse group of students

and over 25 percent of school children enrolled in Catholic schools are minorities;

Whereas the graduation rate of Catholic school students is 95

percent, only 3 percent of Catholic high school students

drop out of school, and 83 percent of Catholic high school

graduates go on to college;
2

•HRES 409 EH

Whereas Catholic schools produce students strongly dedicated

to their faith, values, families, and communities by providing an intellectually stimulating environment rich in

spiritual, character, and moral development; and

Whereas in the 1972 pastoral message concerning Catholic

education, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops

stated, ‘‘Education is one of the most important ways by

which the Church fulfills its commitment to the dignity

of the person and building of community. Community is

central to education ministry, both as a necessary condition and an ardently desired goal. The educational efforts

of the Church, therefore, must be directed to forming

persons-in-community; for the education of the individual

Christian is important not only to his solitary destiny,

but also the destinies of the many communities in which

he lives’’: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) supports the goals of Catholic Schools

3 Week, an event sponsored by the National Catholic

4 Educational Association and the United States

5 Catholic Conference and established to recognize the

6 vital contributions of America’s thousands of Catho7 lic elementary and secondary schools; and

8 (2) congratulates Catholic schools, students,

9 parents, and teachers across the Nation for their on10 going contributions to education, and for the key
3

•HRES 409 EH

1 role they play in promoting and ensuring a brighter,

2 stronger future for this Nation.

Attest:

Clerk.
'':J :·.'.Y 3 i /\ c;: 3 I 

SERVED: MAY 30, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AERO MICRONESIA 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0468 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AERO MICRONESIA 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0469 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR CONTINUANCE 

The motion of Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") to 

continue the hearing, now scheduled to be heard beginning June 3, 2013, in Honolulu, HI, is 

hereby GRANTED. The hearing is cancelled. 
2 

A hearing notice setting a new date will be issued by subsequent order. 

Attachment - Service List 

(/; LJ_ C .G..s6 

Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 
3 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

David M. Kirstein and Lyndsey M. Grunewald 

Kirstein & Young, PLLC, Respondent's Counsel 

1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20006 

TEL: 202-331-3348 

FAX: 202-331-3933 

Michael R. Quinn, President 

Aero Micronesia, Inc. dba Asia Pacific Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 

Danville, CA 94526 

TEL: 925-362-4430 

FAX: 925-362-4432 

Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 

PO Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-3454 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M~20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS NOS. FAA-2012-0468 

& F AA-20 12-0469 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
### Geology of pre-Tertiary rocks in the northern part of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

By: E. T. Ruppel

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp729A

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **East**                            (pdf)
  - **West**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
*154*So.2d 20

#### Ex parte Dorothy HEADLEY.

6 Div. 921.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 30, 1963.

' W. A. Stevenson, Birmingham, for petitioner. "■ •"

MERRILL, Justice.

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court, the writ was granted, answer filed, exceptions were taken to the answer, motion made to strike the answer and the answer was traversed.

The petition shows that petitioner was divorced from her husband, J. C. Headley, granted custody of their two children and awarded support and maintenance by a decree of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in Eqttity, Bessemer Division, on April 1, 1960; that on June 15, 1962, an affidavit for garnishment on judgment was filed for back support and maintenance due in the amount of $2,640; that the garnishee was Alabama By-Products Corporation; that the garnishee’s answer showed J. C. Headley was employed by it and it was indebted to him; that on August 27, 1962, the respondent, Honorable E. L. Ball, the Circuit Judge, made the following ex parte order:

> “ ‘The Respondent be and is hereby directed to make all future payments for alimony and support in this cause through the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Bessemer Division. It is further ordered that no future garnishment be issued by the Clerk in this cause except by order of the Court.’;”

that the order was made without notice to petitioner or her attorney and that an ex parte order was entered on the back of the affidavit for garnishment on judgment, signed by Judge Ball as follows: “September 5, 1962. Released in full except for costs;” that petitioner and her attorney did not learn of this order until September 21, 1962; that Judge Ball was requested to set aside the order and reinstate the garnishment but that he “emphatically stated he would not set aside said orders and reinstate the said garnishment.”

Petitioner prayed that Judge Ball be required to show cause why he should not *263vacate the orders ánd reinstate the garnishment.

 Mandamus is the proper remedy where an order has been erroneously made striking a case from the docket, • and no appeal lies to contest such action. Davis v. McColloch, 191 Ala. 520, 67 So. 701; Terry & Bro. v. Hughes & Co., 93 Ala. 432, 8 So. 686.

The answer, while it gives reasons for the action taken, does not answer the petition, does not deny the allegations of the petition, and does not state that the money due under the decree of divorce has been paid. It is not sufficient.

Unless the orders of August 27 and September 5, 1962, are vacated and the garnishment reinstated upon the receipt of this opinion by the respondent, a peremptory writ of mandamus will be awarded.

Writ of Mandamus conditionally awarded.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
No. A-CV-34-89

Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation

#### Joe L. Bergen, Appellant, v. Alvin Young, et al., Appellees.

Decided February 15, 1990

Before TSO, Chief Justice, BLUEHOUSE and AUSTIN, Associate Justices.

Gary E. LaRance, Esq., Tuba City, Arizona, for the Appellant; and Robert C. Ericson, Esq., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Appellees.

OPINION

Opinion delivered by

Bluehouse, Associate Justice.

The issue is whether this appeal should be dismissed because the appellant failed to file his brief in accordance with Rule 12 of the Navajo Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. We dismiss the appeal.

I

The final judgment was entered by the Window Rock District Court on October 10,1989. Appellant Bergen filed his notice of appeal with this Court on October 25, 1989. On November 20, 1989, the supreme court clerk mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, the notice of docketed appeal to Bergen's attorney pursuant to NRCAP 10(b). The notice informed Bergen that his brief was due in accordance with NRCAP 12. No brief was ever filed by Bergen. On February 12, 1990, the appellees filed this motion to dismiss the appeal citing Bergen's failure to file a brief pursuant to NRCAP 12.

II

The civil appellate rules require the appellant to file his opening brief within 30 days after the supreme court clerk gives notice of docketed appeal. NRCAP 12(a). If the clerk mails the notice, the appellant has an additional seven days to file his opening brief. NRCAP 5(c). Pursuant to these rules, Bergen had 37 days from November 20, 1989 to file his brief. Bergen's brief should have been filed on or before December 27, 1989.

The civil appellate rules provide that “[i]f an appellant does not timely file a brief, the Supreme Court, upon appellee's motion, may dismiss the appeal.” *170NRCAP 12(C). Here, the appellees relied upon NRCAP 12(c) to request dismissal of the appeal. We previously construed NRCAP 12(c) to require summary dismissal of an appeal where the appellant has failed to file his brief by the time the appellee files a motion to dismiss the appeal. *Kinney v. Navajo Nation,*6 Nav. R. 126 (1989). This rule is firmly established and we are bound to follow it.

Nearly two months have elapsed since the date appellant should have filed his brief. The appellant's failure to file his brief has caused this appeal to sit without action by this Court. An appeal should never be filed if the appellant has no desire to proceed with the appeal to completion. Otherwise, if an appeal is filed, but the appellant does not desire to proceed on the appeal, he should immediately request dismissal of the appeal. This procedure saves the appellee time and expense and it ensures judicial efficiency. See *Begay*v. *Begay,*6 Nav. R. 120 (1989).

The appeal is dismissed.
### §8213. Enlisted grades and ratings: authority to establish

The Secretary of the Navy may establish such enlisted grades and ratings as are necessary for the proper administration of the Navy and the Marine Corps.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 375, §6013; renumbered §8213, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(b)(7), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1834.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6013 | 34 U.S.C. 176. | June 4, 1920, ch. 228, §7 (proviso), 41 Stat. 836. |
| | 34 U.S.C. 34 (less 1st sentence, and less proviso of 2d sentence). | Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 417 (1st par. under "Hospital Corps", less 1st sentence, and less proviso of 2d sentence), 39 Stat. 572; Aug. 4, 1947, ch. 459, §301(a), 61 Stat. 738. |

The words "in his discretion" and "of the enlisted personnel" are omitted as surplusage. The words "Navy and the Marine Corps" are substituted for the words "naval service".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 8213, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 501, prescribed authorized strength of Regular Air Force in warrant officers on active list, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–513, title II, §202, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2878, effective Sept. 15, 1981.

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

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6013 of this title as this section.

#### 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.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Marc Fogassa, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment No. 4 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Brazil Minerals, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: September 29, 2014
By:
/s/ Marc FogassaMarc FogassaChief Executive Officer

and Chief Financial Officer(principal executive officer

And principal accounting and financial officer)








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
H. Res. 283

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 14, 1999.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 417) to amend the Federal Election Campaign

Act of 1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other purposes. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on House Administration.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered

as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except

those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only

in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a

Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
2

•HRES 283 EH

shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

and shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order

against the amendments printed in the report are waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a

substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of

the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without

intervening business, provided that the minimum time for

electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall

be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill

to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
### §807. Art. 7. Apprehension

(a) Apprehension is the taking of a person into custody.

(b) Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this chapter or to trial thereunder may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.

(c) Commissioned officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers have authority to quell quarrels, frays, and disorders among persons subject to this chapter and to apprehend persons subject to this chapter who take part therein.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 39.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 807(a)807(b) | 50:561(a).50:561(b). | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §1 (Art. 7), 64 Stat. 111. |
| 807(c) | 50:561(c). | |

807(b)

50:561(b).

In subsection (a), the words "into custody" and "of a person" are transposed.

In subsection (c), the words "All" and "shall" are omitted as surplusage. The word "Commissioned" is inserted before the word "officers" for clarity. The word "therein" is substituted for the words "in the same".