alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007114EN.01000202.xml

| 24.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4622 — Accor S.A./Groupama)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 114/04)

On 4 May 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4622. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4622. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
§ 2.131 Handling of animals. ( a ) All licensees who maintain wild or exotic animals must demonstrate adequate experience and knowledge of the species they maintain.
( b ) ( 1 ) Handling of all animals shall be done as expeditiously and carefully as possible in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort.
( 2 ) ( i ) Physical abuse shall not be used to train, work, or otherwise handle animals.
( ii ) Deprivation of food or water shall not be used to train, work, or otherwise handle animals; *Provided, however,* That the short-term withholding of food or water from animals by exhibitors is allowed by these regulations as long as each of the animals affected receives its full dietary and nutrition requirements each day.
( c ) ( 1 ) During public exhibition, any animal must be handled so there is minimal risk of harm to the animal and to the public, with sufficient distance and/or barriers between the animal and the general viewing public so as to assure the safety of animals and the public.
( 2 ) Performing animals shall be allowed a rest period between performances at least equal to the time for one performance.
( 3 ) Young or immature animals shall not be exposed to rough or excessive public handling or exhibited for periods of time which would be detrimental to their health or well-being.
( 4 ) Drugs, such as tranquilizers, shall not be used to facilitate, allow, or provide for public handling of the animals.
( d ) ( 1 ) Animals shall be exhibited only for periods of time and under conditions consistent with their good health and well-being.
( 2 ) A responsible, knowledgeable, and readily identifiable employee or attendant must be present at all times during periods of public contact.
( 3 ) During public exhibition, dangerous animals such as lions, tigers, wolves, bears, or elephants must be under the direct control and supervision of a knowledgeable and experienced animal handler.
( 4 ) If public feeding of animals is allowed, the food must be provided by the animal facility and shall be appropriate to the type of animal and its nutritional needs and diet.
( e ) When climatic conditions present a threat to an animal's health or well-being, appropriate measures must be taken to alleviate the impact of those conditions. An animal may never be subjected to any combination of temperature, humidity, and time that is detrimental to the animal's health or well-being, taking into consideration such factors as the animal's age, species, breed, overall health status, and acclimation.
[54 FR 36147, Aug. 31, 1989, as amended at 63 FR 10498, Mar. 4, 1998; 69 FR 42102, July 14, 2004]
FILED

January 16, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

MAY SESSION, 1997

WILLIE LEE HENDERSON, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9607-CR-00304

)

Appellant, )

)

) DAVIDSON COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. ANN LACY JOHNS

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE

)

Appellee. ) (Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

WILLIE LEE HENDERSON Pro Se JOHN KNOX WALKUP

Special Needs Facility/Unit 10 Attorney General and Reporter

7575 Cockrill Bend Industrial Rd.

Nashville, TN 37209-1057 MICHAEL J. FAHEY, II

Assistant Attorney General

450 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243

ORDER FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
-2-

ORDER

On July 5, 1995, Appellant, Willie Lee Henderson, filed a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus in the Davidson County Criminal Court. In January of 1996,

the petition was dismissed by that court without a hearing. Appellant appeals

from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition.

After a review of the record, we affirm pursuant to Criminal Court of

Appeals Rule 20.

In March of 1948, Appellant was sentenced to ninety-nine years in the

Tennessee Department of Corrections following a conviction for murder. In

October of 1974, his sentence was commuted by Governor Winfield Dunn.

Appellant was released on November 13, 1974 and placed on five years of

supervision. In 1978, Appellant was involved in an incident which resulted in his

being convicted of kidnaping with intent to rob, robbery and criminal sexual

conduct in the first degree. As a result of these convictions, on September 17,

1979, Governor Lamar Alexander revoked Appellant’s commutation.

Appellant contends that the revocation of his commutation occurred after

the expiration of his original sentence would have occurred had he remained

imprisoned and good and honor time were taken into account. He argues that

the trial court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue and in

dismissing his petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
-3-

It is well settled that habeas corpus relief is available only when it appears

on the face of the judgment that a conviction is void or when the petitioner's term

of imprisonment has expired. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101; State v. Archer,

851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993). In other words, “the only relief that can be

given a prisoner in a state habeas corpus proceeding is release.” State v.

Warren, 740 S.W.2d 427, 428 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1986). In the matter sub judice,

Appellant does not contest the validity of the convictions for robbery, kidnaping

and criminal sexual conduct. Habeas corpus relief does not lie when the

petitioner is rightfully imprisoned under a valid judgm ent and immediate release

is not an option.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Court of

Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

____________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

___________________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certifications

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Actuate Corporation (the
Company) for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge on the date hereof, the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 10, 2007                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                                             
|/s/    Peter I. Cittadini                                                                                                    
|Peter I. Cittadini President and Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                                       
|                                                                                                                             
|/s/    Daniel A. Gaudreau                                                                                                    
|Daniel A. Gaudreau Senior Vice President, Operations and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
### SUBCHAPTER II—LIFE SAVING AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §105(c)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4202, inserted subchapter II designation and heading.
### §1131b. Repealed. July 26, 1956, ch. 741, title I, §105(c), 70 Stat. 665

Section, act June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title I, §4, 48 Stat. 257, provided for capital stock of Production Credit Corporations, value of shares, amount and subscription for initial stock, and payments for stock subscribed on behalf of the United States.
### §635m. Loans, guarantees, and insurance subject to the provisions of this chapter

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as a limitation on the powers of the Bank under subchapter I of this chapter; and except as to the standard of reasonable assurance of repayment required under section 635(b)(1) of this title, all loans, guarantees, and insurance extended hereunder shall be subject to the provisions of subchapter I of this chapter and to the policies of the Bank with respect to terms of repayment, interest rates, fees, and premiums applicable to loans, guarantees, and insurance extended under subchapter I of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 90–390, §4, July 7, 1968, 82 Stat. 297.)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII 901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 September 23, 2011

Dear Owner/Resident: Byron H Gardner Omaha, Nebraska 68105 1722 South 26 Street

1722 South 26 Street

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performe d on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a signific ant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint co nditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yardabove acceptable levels. Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 1722 Sou th 26 Street. The EPA has developed paint stabilization eligibility criteria that involve mea suring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a structure and calculating the concentration of leadin soils around the home that would result if all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fa ll to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessmen t, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint observed on structure surfaces was estimated and th e lead content in the deteriorated paint was measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument. The data obtained during the LBP assessment was use d to estimate the increase in soil lead concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the ground surface within six feet of the foundation an d be uniformly mixed with the top one inch of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the so il potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses these criteria to rank properties based on the pote ntial for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint stabilization is being offered at only those househ olds with the most severe LBP problems, particularly where children under the age of seven reside. Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the a bove criteria indicated that your house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization. RE: SAID: 19102Enclosures

Para información en español, llame al EPA Informati on Center (402) 731-3045. Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts Project Coordinator Environmental Protection Agency If you have any questions or concerns, please conta ct the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045.Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment 

# 1 

# IIIIIIIIIII lllHl l1111 19 

### 1 02

Sample Number Lead Loadmg Structure/Feature Substrate Color Deteriorated (Window s~d~ng, porch, etc (Wood concrete etc ) Area LEGEND: H -N -P-01 -19102 LEVID Number 

# j 

# 1 I Sampte Number



### - 

## - -- P 

### -- 19102 rngcrr?

I

LBPI I Prmted: LI.lul-CN Samples Analyzed XRF Un~t ~RGQP Book
**Exhibit 31(b)****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Anthony A. Vasconcellos, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Regent Communications, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which 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 inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15-15(f)) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 17, 2008/s/ Anthony A. Vasconcellos
# C_2007117EN.01000501.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/5

---

Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-112/07)

(2007/C 117/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. De Persio and M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (1) or, in any case, by not communicating to the Commission the text of those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (1) or, in any case, by not communicating to the Commission the text of those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

1

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition of Directive 2004/80/EC into national law expired on 1 January 2006, with the exception of Article 12(2) of that Directive, in respect of which the date of compliance was 1 July 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 15.

1

---
### §§652 to 655. Repealed. Aug. 6, 1953, ch. 335, §19, 67 Stat. 400

Sections, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §3 (part), 39 Stat. 360, related to appointment, compensation, and oath of Land Bank Commissioner, restriction on his right to engage in certain business and filling vacancies.

Section 652 was amended by act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title III, §301, 42 Stat. 1473; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933; and act June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title VIII, §80(a), 48 Stat. 273.

Sections 653, 654, and 655 were each amended by Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933; and act June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title VIII, §80(a), 48 Stat. 273.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 120 days after Aug. 6, 1953, see act Aug. 6, 1953, ch. 335, §18, 67 Stat. 399.
#### IN RE WILL OF PENLEY

NO. 454P89

Case below: 95 N.C.App. 655

Petition by propounders for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 18 January 1990.
§ 318.17 Requirements for the production of cooked beef, roast beef, and cooked corned beef products. ( a ) Cooked beef, roast beef, and cooked corned beef products must be produced using processes ensuring that the products meet the following performance standards: ( 1 ) *Lethality.* A 6.5-log10 reduction of *Salmonella* or an alternative lethality that achieves an equivalent probability that no viable *Salmonella* organisms remain in the finished product, as well as the reduction of other pathogens and their toxins or toxic metabolites necessary to prevent adulteration, must be demonstrated to be achieved throughout the product. The lethality process must include a cooking step. Controlled intermediate step(s) applied to raw product may form part of the basis for the equivalency.
( 2 ) *Stabilization.* There can be no multiplication of toxigenic microorganisms such as *Clostridium botulinum,* and no more than 1-log10 multiplication of *Clostridium perfringens* within the product.
( b ) For each product produced using a process other than one conducted in accordance with the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system requirements in part 417 of this chapter, an establishment must develop and have on file and available to FSIS, a process schedule, as defined in § 301.2 of this chapter. Each process schedule must be approved in writing by a process authority for safety and efficacy in meeting the performance standards established for the product in question. A process authority must have access to the establishment in order to evaluate and approve the safety and efficacy of each process schedule.
( c ) Under the auspices of a processing authority, an establishment must validate new or altered process schedules by scientifically supportable means, such as information gleaned from the literature or by challenge studies conducted outside the plant.
[64 FR 744, Jan. 6, 1999]
§ 145.62 Participation. Participating flocks of ostriches, emus, rheas, and cassowaries, and the eggs and chicks produced from them, shall comply with the applicable general provisions of subpart A of this part and the special provisions of this subpart. ( a ) Started poultry shall lose their identity under Plan terminology when not maintained by Plan participants under the conditions prescribed in § 145.5(a).
( b ) Hatching eggs produced by primary breeding flocks shall be fumigated or otherwise sanitized in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
( c ) Any nutritive material provided to chicks must be free of the avian pathogens that are officially represented in the Plan disease classifications listed in § 145.10.
[63 FR 40010, July 27, 1998, as amended at 65 FR 8019, Feb. 17, 2000; 79 FR 38759, July 9, 2014]