alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 235/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 235 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 507 September 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 235

English edition

Legislation

Volume 507 September 2007

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2007 of 6 September 2007 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1032/2007 of 6 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1669/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 as regards the buying-in of beef | 3 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2007 of 6 September 2007 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1032/2007 of 6 September 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1669/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 as regards the buying-in of beef

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Gerard J. REIMERING, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. THE RETIREMENT PENSION PLAN OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and the California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau; California State Automobile Association; California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 01-15505. D.C. No. CV-99-04054-THE(JL).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 12, 2002.

Decided May 10, 2002.

*381Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, B. FLETCHER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The Early Retirement Incentives Program was not under serious consideration until after Reimering’s retirement. Reimering never made a specific inquiry about a possible plan enhancement, and defendants therefore had no duty to inform him of sporadic discussions of the subject. *See Bins v. Exxon Co. U.S.A.,*220 F.3d 1042, 1048-49 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
§ 106.36 Counseling and use of appraisal and counseling materials. ( a ) *Counseling.* A recipient shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex in the counseling or guidance of students or applicants for admission.
( b ) *Use of appraisal and counseling materials.* A recipient which uses testing or other materials for appraising or counseling students shall not use different materials for students on the basis of their sex or use materials which permit or require different treatment of students on such basis unless such different materials cover the same occupations and interest areas and the use of such different materials is shown to be essential to eliminate sex bias. Recipients shall develop and use internal procedures for ensuring that such materials do not discriminate on the basis of sex. Where the use of a counseling test or other instrument results in a substantially disproportionate number of members of one sex in any particular course of study or classification, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination in the instrument or its application.
( c ) *Disproportion in classes.* Where a recipient finds that a particular class contains a substantially disproportionate number of individuals of one sex, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination on the basis of sex in counseling or appraisal materials or by counselors.
[45 FR 30955, May 9, 1980, as amended at 85 FR 30579, May 19, 2020]
#### § 200.87 Responsibilities for participation of children in private schools.

An SEA and its operating agencies must conduct programs and projects under this subpart in a manner consistent with the basic requirements of section 8501 of the ESEA.

[67 FR 71736, Dec. 2, 2002, as amended at 84 FR 31677, July 2, 2019]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Section 3001(c)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, requires the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) to update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (developed June 3, 2008) in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies and in collaboration with private and public entities. Work on the five-year Plan began more than a year ago and has included collaboration across federal agencies, as well with the private sector via the HIT Policy Committee. This notice serves to announce that the public comment period for the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan is open through Friday, April 22 at 11:59 p.m. (Eastern). ONC welcomes and encourages all comments from the public regarding the Plan.

                        In order for your comments to be read and considered, you must submit your comment via the Federal Health IT Buzz Blog:                         *http://www.healthit.gov/​buzz-blog/​.*

Dated: March 23, 2011.

Erin Poetter,

Office of Policy and Planning, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

[FR Doc. 2011-7318 Filed 3-28-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-45-P
Law Office of 

Michael S. Truesdale, PLLC 

Michael S. Truesdale mike@truesdalelaw.com

Board Certified • Civil Appellate Law

Texas Board of Legal Specialization

801 West Avenue, Suite 201 Austin, Texas 78701

512.482.8671 (ofc) • 866.847.8719 (fax) • www.truesdalelaw.com

June 12, 2015

Honorable Jeffrey Kyle, Clerk

Third Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, TX 78711

Re: 03-14-00718-CV, Citizens against the Landfill in Hempstead et al. v. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, et al.

Response to Appellants’ Motion to Reconsider Denial of Oral Argument

Dear Mr. Kyle:

Please file this letter with the papers in the above-captioned case.

On June 9, 2015, Appellants filed a motion to reconsider the denial of their request 

for oral argument. Pintail Landfill, LLC files this letter in response.

For the reasons set forth in its Brief of Appellee, Pintail opposes the Motion. While 

Appellants contend the case raises “issues of first impression”, they do not identify 

any such issues, nor do they explain why any such issues are so complicated that 

they cannot be resolved based upon the briefing provided by top-tier counsel at every 

stage in this case. Nor did they identify such issues or rely upon such a ground in 

their initial statement regarding oral argument. Finally, while Appellants contend that 

oral argument is needed to “bring clarity” to the written arguments, they do not 

explain what deficiency exists in the briefing that needs to be clarified. Pintail 

Landfill, LLC is willing to stand by its briefing without oral submission, as the case 

simply does not warrant anything more than submission on the briefs.

Accordingly, Pintail Landfill, LLC opposes the motion requesting reconsideration of 

the denial of oral argument, reserving its right to participate and present oral 

argument in the event the motion is granted.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael S. Truesdale

Michael S. Truesdale

SBN 00791825

Counsel for Appellee Pintail Landfill, LLC

ACCEPTED

03-14-00718-CV

5666395

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

6/12/2015 7:15:20 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/12/2015 7:15:20 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Honorable Jeffrey Kyle

June 12, 2015

Page 2

801 West Ave., Suite 201, Austin, Texas 78701

512.482.8671 (ofc) • 866.847.8719 (fax) • www.truesdalelaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

On June 12, 2015, the undersigned certifies that he served a copy of this 

letter on the following counsel by e-service:

V. Blaire Peña

Terry L. Scarborough

Michael L. Woodward

Wesley P. McGuffey

Hance Scarborough, LLP

400 West 15th Street, Suite 9500

Austin, TX 78701

Attorneys for Citizens Against the 

Landfill in Hempstead 

Monica M. Jacobs

Diana L. Nichols

Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP

301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000

Austin, Texas 78701

Attorneys for City of Hempstead

Nancy Olinger, Assistant Attorney General

Cynthia Woelk, Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station (MC-066)

Austin, TX 78711-2548

Attorneys for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

/s/ Michael S. Truesdale 

Michael S. Truesdale
#### 226 East 86th Street Corporation, Respondent, v. Charles G. Martin, Appellant.

No opinion. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
Kristen E. Burgers (VSB No. 67997)

HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER

8270 Greensboro Drive, Suite 700

Tysons, Virginia 22102

Telephone: (703) 584-8900

Facsimile: (703) 584-8901

Email: kburgers@hirschlerlaw.com

Co-Counsel to the Debtors

Mark S. Lichtenstein (Admitted pro hac)

Crowell & Moring LLP

590 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor

New York, New York 10022

Telephone: (212) 223-4000

Facsimile: (212) 223-4001

Email: mlichtenstein@crowell.com

Co-Counsel to the Debtors

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

)

In re: )

) Chapter 11

GreenTech Automotive, Inc., et al.1) Case No. 18-10651

) Jointly Administered

Debtor. )

)

NOTICE OF INTENTION WITH RESPECT TO PLAN CONFIRMATION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that , as required by the Order Continuing Confirmation Hearing 

and Setting Deadlines [Docket No. 507], GreenTech Automotive, Inc. and WM Industries Corp., 

debtors and debtors-in-possession (the “Debtors”) in these jointly-administered bankruptcy 

cases, do not intend to proceed with confirmation of their Modified Third Amended Joint 

Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation of GreenTech Automotive, Inc. and WM Industries Corp. 

[Docket No. 375] at the hearing scheduled at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time on April 16, 2019.

REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

 

1

 The Debtors in these jointly administered chapter 11 cases are GreenTech Automotive, Inc. (Case No. 18-10651), 

WM Industries Corp. (Case No. 18-10652), Gulf Coast Funds Management, LLC (Case No. 18-10653), American 

Immigration Center, LLC (Case No. 18-10654), GreenTech Automotive Capital A-3 GP, LLC (Case No. 18-10655), 

and GreenTech Automotive Partnership A-3, L.P. (Case No. 18-10656).

Case 18-10651-BFK Doc 530 Filed 03/14/19 Entered 03/14/19 18:52:51 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
Dated: March 14, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kristen E. Burgers

Kristen E. Burgers (VSB No. 67997)

HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER

8270 Greensboro Drive, Suite 700

Tysons, Virginia 22102

Telephone: (703) 584-8900

Facsimile: (703) 584-8901

Email: kburgers@hirschlerlaw.com

/s/ Mark S. Lichtenstein

Mark S. Lichtenstein (Admitted Pro Hac)

Crowell & Moring LLP

590 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor

New York, New York 10022

Telephone: (212) 223-4000

Facsimile: (212) 223-4001

Email: mlichtenstein@crowell.com

Co-Counsel to the Debtor

Case 18-10651-BFK Doc 530 Filed 03/14/19 Entered 03/14/19 18:52:51 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 14th day of March, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing Notice of Election with Respect to Plan Confirmation to be served by operation of 

this Court’s CM/ECF electronic case management system upon all parties entitled to receive 

notice thereby.

/s/ Kristen E. Burgers

Kristen E. Burgers

Case 18-10651-BFK Doc 530 Filed 03/14/19 Entered 03/14/19 18:52:51 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 10.1 to Nature Vision, Inc. Form 8-K dated October 19, 2007









Exhibit 10.1


 


DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


 





	
            $1,000,000
 	
            October 19, 2007
 





 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Nature Vision, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”) promises to pay to Richard Kiphart or his successors or assigns (“Holder”), ON DEMAND AT ANY TIME AFTER JANUARY 19, 2008, at such place as the Holder of this Note may designate in writing to the Company, the principal sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), together with simple interest on the unpaid principal balance from the date of this Note until fully paid at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) per annum, based on actual days elapsed in a year of 365 days. Principal and interest are due and payable in lawful money of the United States of America.


Accrued but unpaid interest is due and payable in monthly installments, with each installment equal to the amount of interest that accrued under this Note during the immediately preceding month, commencing on December 1, 2007, and continuing on the nineteenth day of each month thereafter until all amounts owing under this Note have been paid in full. The first payment due on December 1, 2007 will include all interest accrued from October 19, 2007.


After November 19, 2007, this Note may be fully or partially prepaid at any time during the term of this Note without penalty or premium. Any prepayment made on or before November 19, 2007 must include interest on the amount of the prepaid principal as if that principal remained outstanding until November 19, 2007. Any prepayment shall be applied first to accrued but unpaid interest and the remainder to principal.


The Company waives presentment, dishonor, protest, demand, diligence, notice of protest, notice of demand, notice of dishonor, notice of nonpayment, and any other notice of any kind otherwise required by law in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default, enforcement or collection of this Note and expressly agrees that this Note, or any payment hereunder, may be extended or subordinated (by forbearance or otherwise) at any time, without in any way affecting the liability of the Company.


The Company agrees to pay on demand all reasonable costs of collecting or enforcing payment under this Note, including attorney fees and legal expenses, whether through courts of original jurisdiction, courts of appellate jurisdiction, or bankruptcy courts, or through other legal proceedings.


This Note may not be amended or modified, nor shall any waiver of any provision hereof be effective, except only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of any amendment, modification, or waiver is sought. This Note shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota without regard to conflicts of laws principles.


 




	
             
 	
            NATURE VISION, INC.
 
	 
	
              
 	
            By: 
 	
            /s/   Jeffrey Zernov 

	
             
 	
            Its:   
 	
            President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

AARON O. LOWMAN,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § No. 169, 2016 § § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID 0907016090 § § Submitted: April 12, 2016 Decided: April 20, 2016

Before HOLLAND , VALIHURA , and SEITZ , Justices.

O R D E R

This 20 th day of April 2016, it appears to the Court that: (1) On April 4, 2016, the Court received the appell ant’s notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated and docketed March 2, 2016, denying the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. Unde r Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on o r before April 1, 2016. (2) The Clerk issued a notice directing the appella nt to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. 1 The appellant filed a response to

1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b) (2016).2

the notice to show cause on April 12, 2016. He ass erts that he placed his notice of appeal in the prison mailbox on March 22, 2016. 2 (3) This Court, however, has never adopted a prison er mailbox rule. 3 A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective

. 4 Time is a jurisdictional requirement, 5 and an appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Su preme Court Rule 6. Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered. 6 (4) Prison personnel are not court-related personne l. Consequently, even assuming prison personnel delayed somehow in mailin g the appellant’s notice of appeal, this case does not fall within the exceptio n to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed.

2 The appellant also asserts that he did not receive the notarized statement of his prison account, which needed to be attached to his in forma pauperis motion, until April 8, 2016 and that this should not be held against him. It has not been. The Court’s rule to show cause was limited solely to the timeliness of the notice of appeal an d did not include the appellant’s in forma pauperis motion. 3 Smith v. State , 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (2016). 5 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 6 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
§ 51.9 Computation of time. ( a ) The Attorney General shall have 60 days in which to interpose an objection to a submitted change affecting voting for which a response on the merits is appropriate (*see* § 51.35, § 51.37).
( b ) The 60-day period shall commence upon receipt of a submission by the Voting Section of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division or upon receipt of a submission by the Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, if the submission is properly marked as specified in § 51.24(f). The 60-day period shall recommence upon the receipt in like manner of a resubmission (*see* § 51.35), information provided in response to a written request for additional information (*see* § 51.37(b)), or material, supplemental information or a related submission (*see* § 51.39).
( c ) The 60-day period shall mean 60 calendar days, with the day of receipt of the submission not counted, and with the 60th day ending at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time of that day. If the final day of the period should fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or any day designated as a holiday by the President or Congress of the United States, or any other day that is not a day of regular business for the Department of Justice, the next full business day shall be counted as the final day of the 60-day period. The date of the Attorney General's response shall be the date on which it is transmitted to the submitting authority by any reasonable means, including placing it in a postbox of the U.S. Postal Service or a private mail carrier, sending it by telefacsimile, email, or other electronic means, or delivering it in person to a representative of the submitting authority.
[Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21243, Apr. 15, 2011]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Kurt R. Moore, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ablest Inc. (the Company),
hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 26,
2004 (the Report), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Kurt R. MooreKurt R. MoorePresident and Chief Executive Officer February 17, 2005
§ 1200.110 Self-evaluation. ( a ) The agency shall, by November 28, 1994, evaluate its current policies and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part and, to the extent modification of any such policies and practices is required, the agency shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
( b ) The agency shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with handicaps or organizations representing individuals with handicaps, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments (both oral and written).
( c ) The agency shall, for at least three years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection: ( 1 ) A description of areas examined and any problems identified; and
( 2 ) A description of any modifications made.
### §832j. Deposit of receipts; authorization of appropriations

All receipts from transmission and sale of electric energy generated at the Bonneville project shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States to the credit of miscellaneous receipts, save and except that the Treasury shall set up and maintain from such receipts a continuing fund of $500,000, to the credit of the administrator and subject to check by him, to defray emergency expenses and to insure continuous operation. There is authorized to be appropriated from time to time, out of moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including installation of equipment and machinery for the generation of electric energy and facilities for its transmission and sale.

(Aug. 20, 1937, ch. 720, §11, 50 Stat. 736.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Secretary of the Interior with respect to Bonneville Power Administration transferred to Secretary of Energy by section 7152(a)(1)(D), (2) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, with Bonneville Power Administration to be preserved as a distinct organizational entity within Department of Energy and headed by an Administrator.

The Federal Power Commission was terminated, and its functions, personnel, property, funds, etc., were transferred to Secretary of Energy (except for certain functions transferred to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) by sections 7151(b), 7171(a), 7172(a), 7291, and 7193 of Title 42.