alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007069EN.01001001.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/10

---

Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-44/07)

(2007/C 69/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 14 February 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 41, 2003, p. 26.

1

---
### §1509. Right of direct access

(a) A foreign representative may commence a case under section 1504 by filing directly with the court a petition for recognition of a foreign proceeding under section 1515.

(b) If the court grants recognition under section 1517, and subject to any limitations that the court may impose consistent with the policy of this chapter—

(1) the foreign representative has the capacity to sue and be sued in a court in the United States;

(2) the foreign representative may apply directly to a court in the United States for appropriate relief in that court; and

(3) a court in the United States shall grant comity or cooperation to the foreign representative.

(c) A request for comity or cooperation by a foreign representative in a court in the United States other than the court which granted recognition shall be accompanied by a certified copy of an order granting recognition under section 1517.

(d) If the court denies recognition under this chapter, the court may issue any appropriate order necessary to prevent the foreign representative from obtaining comity or cooperation from courts in the United States.

(e) Whether or not the court grants recognition, and subject to sections 306 and 1510, a foreign representative is subject to applicable nonbankruptcy law.

(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the failure of a foreign representative to commence a case or to obtain recognition under this chapter does not affect any right the foreign representative may have to sue in a court in the United States to collect or recover a claim which is the property of the debtor.

(Added Pub. L. 109–8, title VIII, §801(a), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 137.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Apr. 20, 2005, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under this title before such effective date, except as otherwise provided, see section 1501 of Pub. L. 109–8, set out as an Effective Date of 2005 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT In the Interest of M.T. and H.T., children, ) ___________________________________) ) C.L., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1129 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM ) PROGRAM, ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed September 21, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Lynn Tepper, Judge. C.L., pro se. Bernie McCabe, State Attorney, and Leslie M. Layne, Assistant State Attorney, Clearwater, for Appellee Department of Children and Families. Thomasina Moore and David J. Gregors, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.- 2 -

LaROSE, C.J., and BADALAMENTI and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
# C_2006313EN.01004201.xml

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/42

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG EAC/61/06

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

LIFELONG LEARNING PROGRAMME

LIFELONG LEARNING PROGRAMME

(2006/C 313/14)

1.   Objectives and description

This call for proposals is based on the decision establishing the Lifelong Learning programme which was adopted by the European Parliament and Council on 15 November 2006 (Decision No 1720/2006/EC) (1). The programme covers the 2007 to 2013 period. The specific objectives of the Life Long Learning programme are listed in article 1.3 of the Decision.

1

2.   Eligible applicants

The Lifelong Learning programme applies to all types and levels of education and vocational education and training and it is accessible to all the entities listed in Article 4 of the Decision.

Applicants must be established in one of the following countries (2):

2

| — | the 27 countries of the European Union (as of 1.1.2007), |
| --- | --- |

—

the 27 countries of the European Union (as of 1.1.2007),

| — | the EFTA and EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway (3), |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA and EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway (3),

3

| — | candidate countries: Turkey (4). |
| --- | --- |

—

candidate countries: Turkey (4).

4

3.   Budget and duration of projects

The total budget earmarked for this call is estimated at EUR 784 million.

The level of grants awarded as well as the duration of projects is likely to vary considerably, depending on factors such as the type of project and the number of countries involved.

4.   Deadline for the submission of applications

The main deadlines are:

| Erasmus University Charter | 28 February 2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Jean Monnet programme | 15 March 2007 |
| Comenius, Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig | 30 March 2007 |
| Transversal Programme and Accompanying Measures | 30 April 2007 |

Erasmus University Charter

28 February 2007

Jean Monnet programme

15 March 2007

Comenius, Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig

30 March 2007

Transversal Programme and Accompanying Measures

30 April 2007

5.   Full details

The full text of the call for proposals, together with application forms and guidelines for applicants, can be found at the following Internet address:

http://ec.europa.eu//dgs/education_culture/newprog/index_en.html

Applications must comply with all terms of the full text and be submitted on the forms provided.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:327:SOM:EN:HTML

1

(2)  Except for the Jean Monnet programme that is open to higher education institutions in the whole world

2

(3)  Subject to the entry into force of the relevant EEA Joint Committee decision

3

(4)  Subject to the entry into force of the Memorandum of understanding

4

---
EXHIBIT  32.1


                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

Pursuant  to  section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  section  1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned  officers  of FTS Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),
does  hereby  certify,  to  such  officer's  knowledge,  that:

The  Quarterly Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Form 10-QSB") of
the  Company  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 Form
10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and
results  of  operations  of  the  Company.




/s/  Scott  Gallagher
-------------------------
Scott  Gallagher
Chief  Executive  Officer
August  17,  2005

/s/  Linda  Ehlen
------------------------
Linda  Ehlen
Chief  Financial  Officer  and
Principal  Accounting  Officer
August  17,  2005
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2012-2 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 21, 2012, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2012-2 and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | 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 period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jennifer M. DavisName: Jennifer M. DavisTitle:   Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate:   March 29, 2016/s/ Rich MorrinName: Rich MorrinTitle:   Chief Operating OfficerDate:   March 29, 2016
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1295 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1295

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the United States Post Office located at 3813 Main Street 
  in East Chicago, Indiana, as the ``Lance Corporal Harold Gomez Post 
                                Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF LANCE CORPORAL HAROLD GOMEZ POST OFFICE.

    The United States Post Office located at 3813 Main Street in East 
Chicago, Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ``Lance Corporal 
Harold Gomez Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the post office referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lance Corporal Harold Gomez 
Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Amendment to Amended and Restated AnnTaylor Stores Corporation Management



 Exhibit 10.7 
 AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION PLAN 
 The AnnTaylor Stores
Corporation Management Performance Compensation Plan (“AMIP”) is hereby amended and restated as set forth below. 
 1. The
following sections of the AnnTaylor Stores Corporation AMIP are hereby amended and restated to read as follows: 
 “(a) Payment of an Award (if any) for a Performance Cycle will be made in cash promptly following the end of the Performance Cycle to which it relates and following the certification by the Committee pursuant to
Section 5(f) (but in no event later than the last day of the “applicable 2  1/2 month period”, as such term is
defined in Treasury Regulation § 1.409A-1(b)(4)(i)(A)).” 
 “5(e) Performance Compensation shall be paid by the Company or the Subsidiary employing the Participant promptly following the end of the Performance Period to which it relates, or at such later time as may be determined by the
Committee at the time the Award is made. The foregoing notwithstanding, no payment of Performance Compensation for a Performance Period may be made to a Section 162(m) Officer until the performance results for that Performance Period are
certified by the Committee. A Participant shall not be entitled to receive payment of Performance Compensation unless such Participant is still in the employ of (and shall not have delivered notice of resignation to) the Company or one of its
Subsidiaries at the time the Performance Compensation is actually paid except as otherwise determined by the Committee. All Performance Compensation shall be paid not later than the last day of the ‘applicable 2 1
/2 month period’, as such term is defined in Treasury Regulation § 1.409A-1(b)(4)(i)(A).” 
 “2(c) A “Change in Control” shall be deemed to have occurred if: 
 “(iii) there is consummated a merger or consolidation of the Company with any other entity, other than (A) a merger or consolidation which would
result in the voting securities of the Company outstanding immediately prior thereto continuing to represent (either by remaining outstanding or by being converted into voting securities of the surviving or parent entity) 50% or more of the combined
voting power of the voting securities of the Company or such surviving or parent entity outstanding immediately after such merger or consolidation or (B) a merger or consolidation effected to implement a recapitalization of the Company (or
similar transaction) in which no Person is or becomes the beneficial owner (as defined in clause (i) above), directly or indirectly, of securities of the Company representing 30% or more of the combined voting power of the Company’s then
outstanding securities; or” 
 Except as set forth above, AMIP is hereby ratified and affirmed in all respects.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1698. TAVORIS DESHAWN THOMAS v. THE STATE.

In 2015, Tavoris DeShawn Thomas pled guilty to armed robberyand aggravated

assault and was given an aggregate 15-year sentence, with 10 to serve in prison. In

March 2017, Thomas filed a pro se “Motion to Correct a Void Indictment.” Thomas

contended that his sentence was invalid, asserting that only his co-indictee had held a

weapon during the underlying criminal incident and arguing that the indictment was

fatally flawed. The trial court denied Thomas’s motion, and Thomas filed this direct

appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a courtmaymodify a sentence during the year after

its imposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal, whichever

is later. Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 347-348 (691 SE2d 247) (2010); Burg v.

State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 118 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). Once that statutory period

expires, as it had here when Thomas filed his motion, a trial court may modify a

sentence only if it is void. Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004).

A direct appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to correct a void

sentence if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void or

illegal. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 (1), n. 1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009).

“Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are limited to claims that – even assuming

the existence and validity of the conviction for which the sentence was imposed – the

law does not authorize thatsentence, most typically because it exceeds the mostsevere

punishment for which the applicable penal statute provides.” von Thomas v. State,

293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). When a sentence is within the statutory

range of punishment, it is not void. Jones, supra.

June 01, 2017
Thomas has not claimed that his sentence falls outside of any applicable

statutory range. The claims that he has advanced challenged the validity of his

convictions, not his sentence. See Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 494 (2) (659 SE2d

875) (2008) (challenge to validity of indictment is challenge to conviction, not

sentence);Jones, 278Ga. at 670(“Assertions takingissuewith the procedure employed

in imposing a valid sentence or questioning the fairness of an imposed sentence do not

allege a sentence is void.”). A motion to vacate or modify a conviction is not one of

the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminalcase.

See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010); Harper, supra at 218 (1).

And an appeal from an order denying such a motion must be dismissed. See Roberts,

supra; Harper, supra at 218 (2). 

Given the foregoing, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/01/2017
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Domestic Change Worksheet

QPM#

AIR-ANM-030-F4

Date: December 17, 2008

Revision

1

Record of Contacts

FDMSDocketNo.FAA-200~- I I {'6

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Pcrsoq. Contacted Date

Boeing John SUlIImers April J, 2009

ATA Mark Lopez October 19,2009

UNCONTROLLEO COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master List to Verify That This is the Correcl Revision Before Use
#### § 162.10 Summary suspension or revocation of accreditation of veterinarians.

In any situation where the Administrator has reason to believe that any veterinarian accredited under the provisions of parts 160 and 161 of this subchapter has knowingly violated the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.*), the Administrator may summarily suspend the accreditation of such veterinarian pending final determination in either a suspension or revocation proceeding, effective upon oral or written notification, whichever is earlier. In the event of oral notification, a written confirmation thereof shall be given to such veterinarian as promptly as circumstances permit.

[74 FR 65013, Dec. 9, 2009]
§ 104.11 Continuous reporting of debts and obligations. ( a ) Debts and obligations owed by or to a political committee which remain outstanding shall be continuously reported until extinguished. See 11 CFR 104.3(d). These debts and obligations shall be reported on separate schedules together with a statement explaining the circumstances and conditions under which each debt and obligation was incurred or extinguished. Where such debts and obligations are settled for less than their reported amount or value, the reporting committee shall include a statement as to the circumstances and conditions under which the debt or obligation was extinguished and the amount paid.
( b ) A debt or obligation, including a loan, written contract, written promise or written agreement to make an expenditure, the amount of which is $500 or less, shall be reported as of the time payment is made or not later than 60 days after such obligation is incurred, whichever comes first. A debt or obligation, including a loan, written contract, written promise or written agreement to make an expenditure, the amount of which is over $500 shall be reported as of the date on which the debt or obligation is incurred, except that any obligation incurred for rent, salary or other regularly reoccurring administrative expense shall not be reported as a debt before the payment due date. *See* 11 CFR 116.6. If the exact amount of a debt or obligation is not known, the report shall state that the amount reported is an estimate. Once the exact amount is determined, the political committee shall either amend the report(s) containing the estimate or indicate the correct amount on the report for the reporting period in which such amount is determined.
[45 FR 15108, Mar. 7, 1980, as amended at 55 FR 26386, June 27, 1990]
§ 700.97 Residence. ( a ) Residence is established by proving that the head of household and/or his/her immediate family were legal residents as of December 22, 1974, of the lands partitioned to the Tribe of which they are not members.
[49 FR 22278, May 29, 1984]
#### § 108.8 Exemption for the District of Columbia (52 U.S.C. 30102(g))

Any copy of a report required to be filed with the equivalent officer in the District of Columbia shall be deemed to be filed if the original has been filed with the Commission.

[84 FR 18700, May 2, 2019]
§ 145.42 Participation. ( a ) Participating turkey flocks, and the eggs and poults produced from them, shall comply with the applicable general provisions of subpart A of this part and the special provisions of this subpart D.
( b ) Hatching eggs should be nest clean. They may be fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter or otherwise sanitized.
( c ) Any nutritive material provided to poults must be free of the avian pathogens that are officially represented in the Plan disease classifications listed in § 145.10.
[36 FR 23112, Dec. 3, 1971, as amended at 38 FR 13707, May 24, 1973; 40 FR 1503, Jan. 8, 1975. Redesignated at 44 FR 61586, Oct. 26, 1979, and amended at 49 FR 19802, May 10, 1984; 57 FR 57341, Dec. 4, 1992; 65 FR 8018, Feb. 17, 2000; 68 FR 64511, Nov. 14, 2003; 79 FR 38757, July 9, 2014; 81 FR 53249, Aug. 12, 2016]
§ 13.46 Compromise or settlement. ( a ) Parties may Make offers of compromise or settlement at any time.
( b ) The Reviewing Official has the exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part at any time after the date on which the Reviewing Official is permitted to issue a Complaint and before the date on which the ALJ issues an Initial Decision.
( c ) The Authority Head has exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part at any time after the date on which the ALJ issues an Initial Decision, except during the pendency of any review under § 13.42 or during the pendency of any action to collect penalties and assessments under § 13.43.
( d ) The Attorney General has exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part during the pendency of any review under § 13.42 or of any action to recover penalties and assessments under 31 U.S.C. 3806.
( e ) The Investigating Official may recommend settlement terms to the Reviewing Official, the Authority Head, or the Attorney General, as appropriate. The Reviewing Official may recommend settlement terms to the Authority Head, or the Attorney General, as appropriate.
( f ) Any compromise or settlement must be in writing and signed by all parties and their Representatives.