alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006331EN.01003802.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/38

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Commission v Parthenon

(Case T-7/05) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Fourth framework programme of activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration - Recovery of sums advanced)

(2006/C 331/84)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent, assisted by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Parthenon AE Ikodomikon — Tekhnikon — Touristikon — Viomikhanikon — Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion (Aigio, Greece) (represented by: A. Masoulas, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought pursuant to Article 238 EC for the recovery of sums advanced within the framework of Contract FAIR-CT98-9544, terminated by the Commission for failure by the defendant to perform its contractual obligations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the defendant, Parthenon AE Ikodomikon — Tekhnikon — Touristikon — Viomikhanikon — Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion, to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 154 383,53, plus interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus 1.5 percentage points for the period from 31 July to 31 December 2002 and plus 2 percentage points as from 1 January 2003 until full and final discharge; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the defendant, Parthenon AE Ikodomikon — Tekhnikon — Touristikon — Viomikhanikon — Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion, to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 154 383,53, plus interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus 1.5 percentage points for the period from 31 July to 31 December 2002 and plus 2 percentage points as from 1 January 2003 until full and final discharge;

| 2. | Dismisses the application as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the application as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the defendant, and orders the defendant to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the defendant, and orders the defendant to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

1

---
### §3372. Assignment of contractual rights to receive surplus natural gas

#### (a) Authorization of assignments

The Commission may, by rule or order, authorize any intrastate pipeline to assign, without compensation, to any interstate pipeline or local distribution company all or any portion of such intrastate pipeline's right to receive surplus natural gas at any first sale, upon such terms and conditions as the Commission determines appropriate.

#### (b) Effect of authorization under subsection (a)

For the effect of an authorization under subsection (a), see section 3431 of this title (relating to the coordination of this chapter with the Natural Gas Act [15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.]).

#### (c) Surplus natural gas

For purposes of this section, the term "surplus natural gas" means any natural gas which is determined, by the State agency having regulatory jurisdiction over the intrastate pipeline which would be entitled to receive such natural gas in the absence of any assignment to exceed the then current demands on such pipeline for natural gas.

(Pub. L. 95–621, title III, §312, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3392; Pub. L. 101–60, §3(b)(2), July 26, 1989, 103 Stat. 158.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Natural Gas Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is act June 21, 1938, ch. 556, 52 Stat. 821, which is classified generally to chapter 15B (§717 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this act to the Code, see section 717w of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1989—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–60 substituted "any natural gas" for "any natural gas—

"(1) which is not committed or dedicated to interstate commerce on November 8, 1978;

"(2) the first sale of which is subject to a maximum lawful price established under subchapter I of this chapter; and

"(3)".

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

#### Effective Date of 1989 Amendment

Section 3(b) of Pub. L. 101–60 provided in part that the amendment by section 3(b)(2) of Pub. L. 101–60 is effective Jan. 1, 1993.
#### §§ 1313.141-1313.148 [Reserved]
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. JOHN F. TAITANO, Defendant

Criminal No. 101F-76

Superior Court of Guam

September 1, 1976

BENSON, *Judge*

JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, on the 17th day of May, 1976, the defendant John F. Taitano, was indicted by the grand jury, duly convened, and charged with violation of Section 626.10(a) (1) of Guam Public Law *11-149;*and

WHEREAS, on the 19th day of May, 1976, upon *341arraignment, the defendant entered a plea of Not Guilty and demanded a jury trial; and

WHEREAS, on the 26th day of July, 1976, the jury having been impanelled and the trial having been regularly had and by the verdict of the jury, found defendant John F. Taitano guilty of the offense of unauthorized, unlawful delivery of controlled substance (heroin); and

WHEREAS, on the 2nd day of August, 1976, a motion for judgment of acquittal was duly filed; and

WHEREAS, on the 18th day of August, 1976, arguments were heard by the court and the court having considered arguments of counsel denied the motion for judgment of acquittal; now, therefore

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that for the offense of unauthorized, unlawful delivery of controlled substance (heroin), the defendant, John F. Taitano, be, and is hereby sentenced to be confined in the Department of Corrections for a period of 15 months.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Director of Corrections is directed to transport the Defendant each day, seven days a week, to the Mental Health Center, Guam Memorial Hospital, in order that the Defendant can continue uninterruptedly his participation in the Methodone Program, so long as the Defendant is confined. Should the Mental Health Center inform the Director of Corrections that less frequent visits are required in the future, the Director of Corrections is authorized to transport the Defendant only on those days and at those times indicated as necessary by the Mental Health Center.
NO. 07-06-0107-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL C MARCH 30, 2006

______________________________ GUADALUPE VALDEZ, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 251 ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; NO. 50,140-C; HON. PATRICK A. PIRTLE, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Order of Dismissal

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ. Guadalupe Valdez , appell ant, attempts to appeal her conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial court imposed her sente nce in o pen court on Febru ary 14, 2006. Appellant then filed a notice of appeal on March 29, 2006. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed wit hin 30 days after the sentence is imposed or suspe nded in open cou rt or w ithin 90 d ays after that date if a motion for new1 The appropr iat e vehic le f or seeki ng an out- of- ti me appeal f rom a fi nal f elonyconvi cti on is bywrit of habeas corpus p ursuant to Article 11.0 7 of the Tex as C ode of Crim inal P roce dure . See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07 (Ve rnon 2 005). 2 trial is filed . T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a). No motion for new trial ha ving been filed here, appellant's notice of appeal wasdue tobe filed by March 16, 2006. Because i t was not so filed until on March 28, 2006, and because no extension of that deadline was sought, it was late. A timely filed notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appella te jurisdi ction. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). If itis untimely, we can take no action other tha n to dismiss the proceeding. Id . at 523. Appellant's notice being untimely filed, we have no jurisdiction over the matter and dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed . 1 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF AIRAMBULANCE BY AIR TREK, INC. FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Proceeding) FDMS NO. FAA-2011-1003 RONNIE A. YODER CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVELAWJUDGE 

# RECEIVED [::E;Q 

# 2I

# 2m2**HEA""'IN~--** n.: \iJ 

# DOCKI!T

DRAFT ORDERESTABLISHING JOINT SCHEDULE Pursuant to Ru1e 13.217(d), undersigned counsel hereby submits the following draft order establishing an agreed procedural schedule to be signedbythe Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, ChiefAdministrative LawJudge, and filed withthe hearing docket cleric (a)
1. Stipulations

- Stipulations, by and betweenthe parties, shall be filed on or before June 15, 2012.
11. List ofwitnesses and a summary oftheir proposed testimony

- a list of witnesses and a summary oftheir proposed testimony shall be exchanged
on or before May 15, 2012. (b) Exchanging exhibits and discovery

- Exchange ofexhibits to be introduced at the hearing; a list ofwitnesses that maybe called atthe hearing; and all other discovery shall be completed no later than April13, 2012.PROPOSED HEARING SITE The hearing shall take place in Washington, D.C. PROPOSED HEARING DATE A two-day hearing shall take place on July 16-17, 2012. SO ORDERED. Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative LawJudge

2Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 ONE COPY GREGORY S. WINTON, Respondent's Counsel THE AVIATION LAW FIRM One Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 TEL: (30 1) 294-8550 FAX: (301) 294-2525 STEPHEN W. BRICE, ESQ., Complainant's Counsel FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Office ofthe Regional Counsel FAA Eastern Region, AEA-7 1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 Jamaica, NY 11434 Tel: 718 553-3268 Fax: 718 533-5699 The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, Room E12-320 1200 NewJersey Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202 366-2142 FAX: 202 366-7536

3
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3168

_____________________________

JAMES LEE BELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County.

Gregory S. Parker, Judge.

June 12, 2019

PER CURIAM.

James Lee Bell appeals an order denying his motion to 

correct an illegal sentence. Framing the issue as an ex post facto 

violation, Bell argues that his life sentence imposed after 

resentencing is illegal because he could not be subject to habitual 

felony offender (HFO) sanctions upon resentencing. We affirm. 

In 1997, Bell was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced 

to life in prison as a violent career criminal (VCC) under section 

775.084, Florida Statutes (1997). In 2004, following a motion to 

correct illegal sentence, the circuit court vacated the VCC 

designation and sentence but reimposed the life term, finding 

that Bell qualified as an HFO. On appeal, this court affirmed. 

Bell v. State, 903 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). 
2

Bell argues that because the basis for the departure sentence

in 1997 was found invalid in 2004, the court could not again 

depart during resentencing. See Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748, 

750 (Fla. 1987) (“[W]e hold that a trial court may not enunciate 

new reasons for a departure sentence after the reasons given for 

the original departure sentence have been reversed by an 

appellate court.”). The supreme court rejected this argument as 

applied to the habitual felony offender statute, section 775.084.

See State v. Collins, 985 So. 2d 985, 994 (Fla. 2008) (“[W]e hold 

that when a habitual offender sentence is reversed because of 

insufficient evidence, on remand for resentencing the State may 

again attempt to prove that the defendant meets the criteria for 

such sentencing.”). See also Molfetto v. State, 942 So. 2d 967, 968 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (approving an HFO sentence imposed on 

resentencing after a VCC sentence was vacated).*

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and RAY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

James Lee Bell, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

 * Bell also argues that only precedent existing at the time his 

sentence became final in 1998 may be applied. Regardless, this 

Court’s precedent at the time permitted habitualization on 

resentencing. See Rhodes v. State, 704 So. 2d 1080, 1083 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 1997); Brown v. State, 701 So. 2d 410, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 

1997). The supreme court approved Rhodes and Brown. Collins, 

985 So. 2d at 994.
§ 141.2 FERC Form No. 1-F, Annual report for Nonmajor public utilities and licensees. ( a ) *Prescription.* The form of Annual Report for Nonmajor Public Utilities and Licensees, designated herein as FERC Form No. 1-F, is prescribed for the year 1980 and each year thereafter.
( b ) *Filing Requirements* — ( 1 ) *Who Must File* — ( i ) *Generally.* Each Nonmajor and each Nonoperating (formerly designated as Nonmajor) public utility and licensee as defined in Part 101 of this chapter, shall prepare and file with the Commission FERC Form No. 1-F as prescribed in § 385.2011 of this chapter and as indicated in the General Instructions set out in this form, and must be properly completed and verified. Filing on electronic media pursuant to § 385.2011 of this chapter is required.
( ii ) *Exceptions.* FERC Form No. 1-F is not prescribed for any municipality as defined in Section 3 of the Federal Power Act, i.e., a city, county, irrigation district, drainage district, or other political subdivision or agency of a State competent under the laws thereof to carry on the business of developing, transmitting, utilizing, or distributing power.
( 2 ) *When to file.* ( i ) The annual report for the year ending December 31, 2004, must be filed on April 25, 2005.
( ii ) The annual report for each year thereafter must be filed on April 18.
[Order 101, 45 FR 60899, Sept. 15, 1980, as amended by Order 390, 49 FR 32515, Aug. 14, 1984; 50 FR 5744, Feb. 12, 1985; 69 FR 9043, Feb. 26, 2004; Order 694, 72 FR 20723, Apr. 26, 2007; Order 859, 84 FR 30628, June 27, 2019]
# C_2010328EN.01001601.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands), lodged on 17 September 2010 — G.A.P. Peeters-van Maasdijk v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-455/10)

()

2010/C 328/29

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: G.A.P. Peeters-van Maasdijk

Appellant:

Respondent: Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it also applies to a worker who, after her last employment, but while in receipt of a work incapacity benefit, transfers her place of residence in a border region to a Member State other than the competent Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it also applies to a worker who, after her last employment, but while in receipt of a work incapacity benefit, transfers her place of residence in a border region to a Member State other than the competent Member State?

1

| 2. | Must Article 45 TFEU and/or Article 21 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as Article 19(1)(f) of the Werkloosheidswet (Netherlands Law on unemployment), which makes the revival of entitlement to unemployment benefit conditional on the place of residence of the person concerned being within the territory of the Netherlands, even if that person lives just a short distance from the Netherlands border and is entirely focused on the Netherlands labour market, is compatible with those articles? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 45 TFEU and/or Article 21 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as Article 19(1)(f) of the Werkloosheidswet (Netherlands Law on unemployment), which makes the revival of entitlement to unemployment benefit conditional on the place of residence of the person concerned being within the territory of the Netherlands, even if that person lives just a short distance from the Netherlands border and is entirely focused on the Netherlands labour market, is compatible with those articles?

---

(1)  Council Regulation of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).

1

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 12

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 12 appear at 69 FR 32438, June 10, 2004.

#### § 12.13 Verification form.

If a document submitted in accordance with the provisions of this part must be verified, the form of verification attached to the document must be the following:

State of [ ],

County of [ ], ss:

The undersigned, being first duly sworn, states that [he, she] has read the above document and knows the contents of it, and that all of the statements contained in that document are true and correct, to the best of [his, her] knowledge and belief.

[Name of person signing]

Sworn to and subscribed before me this [day] of [month], [year].

[Seal]

[Signature of notary public or other state or local official authorized by law to notarize documents.]
### ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1021 NORTH GRANO AVENUE EAST, P.O. Box 19276, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794·9276 • (217) 782·2829 PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR LISA BONNETT, DIRECTOR 217/785-4140 TDD 217/782-9143

June 11, 2014 

### Mr. George T. Czemiak, Director Air and Radiation Division U.S. Enviromnental ProtectionAgency, Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604-3950 

### Re: Clarification on Illinois' December 31, 2012, 

### "Infrastructure" State Implementation Plan (SIP) to Address the 2008 

### Ozone, 2010 

### Nitrogen Dioxide (N02), 

### and 2010 

### SulfurDioxide (S02) 

### National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS) Dear 

### Mr. Czemiak: This letter is inresponse to arequestbyyour stafffor clarificationregarding Illinois' Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2010 N02, and 2010 S02 NAAQS. Your staffhas requested clarificationregarding the interstatetransport provisions under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Specifically, the requirements contained in this sectionrequire the SIP to contain adequate provisions that prohibit emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantlyto nonattainment in, orinterfere with maintenance by, any other state withrespect to anyNAAQS. We would like to clarifythat for the purposes ofsatisfying the interstatetransport requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the provisions included in our December 31,2012, submission are only intended to address the 2010 N02 NAAQS. In other words, the interstate transport provisions that are before EPA for evaluation do not extend to the 2008 ozone or 2010 S02 NAAQS. Please let me know ifyou have any questions, orhave your staffcontact David Bloomberg at 217-524-4949. Sincerely,

# ioKN~ Bureau ofAir

4302 N. Main St., Rockford, IL 61103 {815) 987-7760 595 S, State, Elgin. ll 60123 (847) 608-3131 2125 S, First St., Champaign, ll 61820 (217) 278-5800 2009 Mall St.,. Collinsville, ll62234 (618) 346-5120 9511 Horrhon St., Des Plolncs, IL 6001 6 (847) 294-4000 -412 SW Washington St.,Sulto D, Peoria, ll61602 (309) 671-3022 2309 W. Main St., Suite 116, Marlon, IL 62959 (618) 993-7200 100 W. Randolph, Suite 10-300, Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 81 <4-6026 PLEASE PRINT ON RECYCLED PAPER
Exhibit 32.a



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|                  |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:             |  |                            
|November 14, 2007 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | John P. Manning            
|                  |  | Principal Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

#### § 28.59 Official record.

The transcript of testimony and the exhibits, together with all papers and motions filed in the proceedings, shall constitute the exclusive and official record.