alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010161EN.01003302.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/33

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Pietro Calogero v Ministero dell’Interno

(Case C-175/10)

(2010/C 161/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pietro Calogero

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

Question referred

Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

| (a) | tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

| (b) | in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

| (c) | provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?

---
§ 73.1 Interstate movement prohibited. ( a ) *Cattle affected with scabies.* No cattle affected with scabies shall be shipped, trailed, driven, or otherwise moved interstate for any purpose except as provided in this part.
( b ) *Cattle affected with or exposed to scabies.* No cattle which, just prior to movement, were affected with or exposed to scabies shall be shipped, trailed, driven, or otherwise moved interstate for any purpose except as provided in this part.
( c ) *Cattle from area quarantined for scabies.* No cattle shall be shipped, trailed, driven, or otherwise moved interstate from the area quarantined for the disease of scabies in cattle except as provided in this part.
[28 FR 5945, June 13, 1963, as amended at 41 FR 5384, Feb. 6, 1976]
H. Res. 502

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 16, 2000.

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. 4425) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure

for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against

consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(c)

of rule XIII are waived. 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 Appropriations. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure

to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
2

•HRES 502 EH

Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition

on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment

has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule

XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read.

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.

SEC. 2. For purposes of enforcement of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in the House, the appropriate levels of total new budget authority and total budget outlays for

fiscal years 2000 through 2005 prescribed by House Concurrent Resolution 290 pursuant to section 301(a)(1) of the Act
3

•HRES 502 EH

shall be those reflected in the table entitled ‘‘Conference Report Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Resolution Total Spending and

Revenues’’ on page 49 of House Report 106–577.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-92326, 333-117148, 333-118728, 333-136845) and
on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-136046 and 333-136366) of Motient Corporation and
subsidiaries of our reports, dated March 30, 2007 relating to the consolidated
financial statements, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.



/s/Freidman LLP
---------------

East Hanover, New Jersey
March 30, 2007
# C_2007127EN.01000801.xml

| 8.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 June 2007

(2007/C 127/04)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3470 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 163,43 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4466 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67900 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3205 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6477 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 84,64 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0820 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5833 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,412 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 253,15 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6964 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8355 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,2679 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,268 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7883 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5926 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4267 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5256 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7842 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0669 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 248,33 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,6950 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3028 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3534 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 954,63 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6135 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,969 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,8460 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,977 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3470

JPY

Japanese yen

163,43

DKK

Danish krone

7,4466

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67900

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3205

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6477

ISK

Iceland króna

84,64

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0820

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5833

CZK

Czech koruna

28,412

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

253,15

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6964

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8355

RON

Romanian leu

3,2679

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,268

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7883

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5926

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4267

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5256

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7842

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0669

KRW

South Korean won

1 248,33

ZAR

South African rand

9,6950

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3028

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3534

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 954,63

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6135

PHP

Philippine peso

61,969

RUB

Russian rouble

34,8460

THB

Thai baht

43,977

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 27, 2010 

s0920 

Order 

 

September 27, 2010 

141365 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141365 

 COA: 297741 

 Wayne CC: 09-020783-01-FC 

MAURICE ANDREW MOORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 8, 2010 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Wagner, appellant, and Sutro, respondent.

Decree unanimously affirmed. Opinion of the Chancellor (8 *C. E. Green*388) adopted as the opinion of this court.
1 The Honorable John R. Tunheim, UnitedStates District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 00-2675MN

_____________ United States of America, * * On Appeal from the United Appellee, * States District Court * for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Alberto Ramirez-Bandrich, * [Not To Be Published] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 31, 2001 Filed: June 8, 2001

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Alberto Ramirez-Bandrich pleaded guilty to reentering the United States illegally after previously having been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). The District Court 1 departed downward andsentenced Ramirez-Bandrich to three years and ten months (forty-six months) imprisonment

and three years supervised release, and he appeals. His counsel has filed-2-

a brief and has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although we granted Ramirez-Bandrich permission to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.
As part of his written plea agreement, Ramirez-Bandrich waived the right to appeal this sentence, and we conclude that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. Ramirez-Bandrich was assisted by counsel and an interpreter at the change-of-plea and sentencing hearings; the Court carefully questioned him about the appeal waiver at the change-of-plea

hearing, verifying that he understood it; the Court advised him of the statutory maximum penalty; and his sentence was consistent with the plea agreement. See United States v. Michelsen , 141 F.3d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir.) (holding that appeal waiver is enforceable so long as it resulted from knowing and voluntary decision), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 942 (1998); UnitedStates v. Greger , 98 F.3d 1080, 1081-82 (8th Cir.1996) (enforcing knowing and voluntary waiver of right to appeal sentence so long as sentence is not in conflict with negotiated plea agreement; waiver was knowing and intelligent where it was included in plea agreement and was discussed at change-of-plea hearing). Accordingly, because Ramirez-Bandrich’s sentence was not in conflict with the plea agreement, we now specifically enforce his promise not to appeal by dismissing this appeal. See UnitedStates v. Estrada-Bahena , 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
(November 14, 2006)

#### A & C Construction Inc. of New York, Appellant, v Richard J. Flanagan et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 682]

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J), dated September 26, 2005, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (a) for leave to enter a judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, and granted the defendants’ application for leave to serve a late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendants pursuant to CPLR 3215 (a). The defendants demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for their default and a potentially meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 2005, 5015 [a] [1]; *Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*15 AD3d 353 [2005]). Furthermore, in light of the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff from the delay, the existence of potentially meritorious defenses, the strong public policy to resolve actions on their merits, and the defendants’ lack of willfulness, the Supreme Court properly vacated the default and granted the defendants’ application for leave to serve a late answer *(see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Home Assur. Co.,*28 AD3d 442 [2006]; *New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Auto One Ins. Co.,*28 AD3d 441 [2006]; *Nunez v Bertram,*24 AD3d 523 [2005]; *Yonkers Rib House, Inc. v 1789 Cent. Park Corp.,*19 AD3d 687 [2005]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Santucci, Goldstein, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Order filed April 13, 2021

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00141

- CV

____________ WLSC INCOPRO, LLC , Appellant

V.
ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial C o urt Cause No. 2017

- 24459



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed March 12, 2021. To date, the filing fee of $20 5.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying c o sts has been filed.
See Tex. R. App. P

. 5

. Therefore, the court issues the following order.
Appellant is ordered to pay th e filing fee in the amount of $20 5.00 to the

c lerk of this court on or before April 28, 2021

. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant
f ails to timel y pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be
dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5188]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Certification of the Attorney General; Maricopa County, Arizona

    In accordance with Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 
1973f, I hereby certify that in my judgment the appointment of Federal 
observers is necessary to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth and 
Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States in 
Maricopa County, Arizona. This county is included within the scope of 
the determinations of the Attorney General and the Director of the 
Census made under Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 
1973b(b), and published in the Federal Register on September 23, 1975 
(40 FR 43746).

    Dated: March 3, 2011.
Eric H. Holder Jr.,
Attorney General of the United States.
[FR Doc. 2011-5188 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-13-P
From: pfarina4@gmail.com [mailto:pfarina4@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Phil Farina

Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 11:38 AM

To: Jordan, Ronald; Flanders, Phillip; DeMeo, Sharon M.

Subject: Liberty Hydro Technology

I am sorry it took so long but we had so many projects ongoing, not an excuse just a 

fact!

Here is a technical explanation of the Liberty Hydro ZVI Blue technology for managing 

selenium FGD waste water.

We are working on the economics per you request.

We have also been asked by EPRI to respond to questions that the EPA has asked 

EPRI. We are working on that as well.

If you have any questions please call us anytime.

Phil Farina

Sales Executive

Liberty Hydro

Phil.farina@libertyhydro.com

419-346-8848
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5208]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2962-000]


Tropicana Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Tropicana Manufacturing Company, Inc.'s application for market-based 
rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is March 21, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#70363522333f1e1c191e15230500001f020430161502135e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6e0e3f4e5e9c8cacfc8c3f5d3d6d6c9d4d2e6c0c3d4c588c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a> 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 1, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5208 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 78.23 Brucellosis exposed bison. Brucellosis exposed bison may be moved interstate only as follows: ( a ) *Movement to recognized slaughtering establishments.* Brucellosis exposed bison may be moved interstate for slaughter accompanied by a permit or “S” brand permit and as follows: ( 1 ) Directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment or directly to an approved intermediate handling facility and then directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment; or
( 2 ) From a farm of origin directly to a specifically approved stockyard approved to receive brucellosis exposed bison and then ( i ) Directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment; or
( ii ) Directly to an approved intermediate handling facility and then directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment.
( b ) *Movement to quarantined feedlots.* Brucellosis exposed bison may be moved directly to a quarantined feedlot or, from a farm of origin, directly to a specifically approved stockyard approved to receive brucellosis exposed bison and then directly to a quarantined feedlot. Such bison shall be accompanied by a permit or “S” brand permit.
( c ) *Movement other than in accordance with paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section.* Brucellosis exposed bison which are from herds known to be affected, but which are not part of a herd being depopulated under part 51 of this chapter, may move without further restriction under this subpart if the bison: ( 1 ) Are under 6 months of age and were weaned from brucellosis reactor or brucellosis exposed bison not less than 30 days immediately preceding interstate movement; or
( 2 ) Are under 6 months of age and nursing brucellosis exposed bison in a herd subjected to a herd blood test within 10 days prior to interstate movement; or
( 3 ) Are official vaccinates under 1 year of age from a herd following an approved individual herd plan.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0051) [51 FR 32580, Sept. 12, 1986, as amended at 59 FR 67133, Dec. 29, 1994; 78 FR 2070, Jan. 9, 2013]