alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2005 — Napoli Buzzanca v Commission

(Case T-218/02) (1)

(Officials - Post of director - Procedure to fill vacant posts - Decision rejecting a candidature - Statement of reasons)

(2005/C 281/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Daniela Napoli Buzzanca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, Agents)

Application for

firstly, annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 30 January 2002 appointing Ms S. as director, in grade A2, of Directorate ‘Multilateral relations and human rights’ of the ‘External Relations’ Directorate-General and rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post, and annulment, to the extent necessary, of the implied rejection by the Commission of her complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, secondly, an order that the defendant pay damages assessed, as at the date of the action and subject to possible increase, in the sum of EUR 23 213,96 and, finally, an order that the Commission produce her administrative file.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.

----
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-101298) pertaining to the 2002
Stock Incentive Plan, the 2001 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, the 2001 Service Award Option Plan and the 1998 Stock Option Plan of SI International, Inc. of our report dated
February 10, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of SI International, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 27, 2003.

McLean,
Virginia
March 10, 2004

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1





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 Annual Report of GlobeTrac Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John daCosta, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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/ John daCosta




John daCosta


Chief Executive Officer




March 29, 2011
§ 46.420 Terms used in an environmental impact statement. The following terms are commonly used to describe concepts or activities in an environmental impact statement: ( a ) *Statement of purpose and need.* In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.13, the statement of purpose and need briefly indicates the underlying purpose and need to which the bureau is responding. ( 1 ) In some instances it may be appropriate for the bureau to describe its “purpose” and its “need” as distinct aspects. The “need” for the action may be described as the underlying problem or opportunity to which the agency is responding with the action. The “purpose” may refer to the goal or objective that the bureau is trying to achieve, and should be stated to the extent possible, in terms of desired outcomes.
( 2 ) When a bureau is asked to approve an application or permit, the bureau should consider the needs and goals of the parties involved in the application or permit as well as the public interest. The needs and goals of the parties involved in the application or permit may be described as background information. However, this description must not be confused with the bureau's purpose and need for action. It is the bureau's purpose and need for action that will determine the range of alternatives and provide a basis for the selection of an alternative in a decision.
( b ) *Reasonable alternatives.* In addition to the requirements of 40 CFR 1502.14, this term includes alternatives that are technically and economically practical or feasible and meet the purpose and need of the proposed action.
( c ) *Range of alternatives.* This term includes all reasonable alternatives, or when there are potentially a very large number of alternatives then a reasonable number of examples covering the full spectrum of reasonable alternatives, each of which must be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, as well as those other alternatives that are eliminated from detailed study with a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. 40 CFR 1502.14. The Responsible Official must not consider alternatives beyond the range of alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents, but may select elements from several alternatives discussed. Moreover, the Responsible Official must, in fact, consider all the alternatives discussed in an environmental impact statement. 40 CFR 1505.1 (e).
( d ) *Preferred alternative.* This term refers to the alternative which the bureau believes would best accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed action while fulfilling its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical, and other factors. It may or may not be the same as the bureau's proposed action, the non-Federal entity's proposal or the environmentally preferable alternative.
#### § 726.319 Retention of official record.

The official record of every completed administrative hearing held pursuant to this part shall be maintained and filed under the custody and control of the Director.
§ 4.624 When may further proceedings be held? ( a ) Ordinarily, the determination of an award will be made on the basis of the written record. However, the adjudicative officer may order further proceedings, which will be held only when necessary for full and fair resolution of the issues and will be conducted as promptly as possible.
( b ) The adjudicative officer may order further proceedings on his or her own initiative or in response to a request by you or by the Department or other agency. A request for further proceedings under this section must: ( 1 ) Identify the information sought or the disputed issues; and
( 2 ) Explain why the additional proceedings are necessary to resolve the issues.
( c ) As to issues other than substantial justification (such as your eligibility or substantiation of fees and expenses), further proceedings under this section may include an informal conference, oral argument, additional written submissions, pertinent discovery, or an evidentiary hearing.
( d ) The adjudicative officer will determine whether the position of the Department or other agency was substantially justified based on the administrative record of the adversary adjudication as a whole.
#### § 3141.61 Initiation of competitive lease offering.

The BLM may, on its own motion, offer lands through competitive bidding. A request or expression(s) of interest in tract(s) for competitive lease offerings must be submitted in writing to the proper BLM office.
#### § 423.62 Reservations for public use limits.

To implement a public use limit, an authorized official may establish a registration or reservation system.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel MARTINEZ-MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50956.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Manuel Martinez-Molina raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Martina Ciciarelli, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Harry Williamson and Another, Impleaded with James W. Bixby and Others, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concurred; Merrell, J., not sitting.
### §1501. Privilege to file consolidated returns

An affiliated group of corporations shall, subject to the provisions of this chapter, have the privilege of making a consolidated return with respect to the income tax imposed by chapter 1 for the taxable year in lieu of separate returns. The making of a consolidated return shall be upon the condition that all corporations which at any time during the taxable year have been members of the affiliated group consent to all the consolidated return regulations prescribed under section 1502 prior to the last day prescribed by law for the filing of such return. The making of a consolidated return shall be considered as such consent. In the case of a corporation which is a member of the affiliated group for a fractional part of the year, the consolidated return shall include the income of such corporation for such part of the year as it is a member of the affiliated group.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 367.)
#### Dunwody *v.*Fengar.

November 18, 1910.

Mortgage foreclosure. Before Judge Parker. Glynn superior court. July 27, 1909.

*D. W. Krauss,*for plaintiff in error. *Courtland Symmes,*contra.

Beck, J.

No errors of law are complained of; and the evidence, together with the deductions which the jury were authorized to draw from the same, was sufficient to authorize the verdict. The judgment refusing a new trial, therefore, is

*Affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Atlcvnson, J., disqualified.*
----

Notification by the Republic of Latvia concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 251/03)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia to the EU presents its compliments to the Secretariat General of the Council of the European Union and has the honour to bring to their attention the following issue.

Becoming a Member State of the European Union, Latvia unilaterally introduced visa-free regime for the citizens of the Republic of Nicaragua in accordance with EU Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement.

Latvia would like to notify the Council and the Commission that although the Republic of Nicaragua applies visa-free regime to the citizens of Republic of the Latvia, it is required to buy a tourism card upon arrival in the Republic of Nicaragua. Taking into account recital 4 of the Preamble of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement as regards the reciprocity mechanism, this situation can not be admitted as full reciprocity.

Taking into consideration the abovementioned and in accordance with the solidarity mechanism provided by Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 for achieving full reciprocity in respect to all Member States, Latvia believes that appropriate measures have to be taken in order to assure that all EU citizens may enter the territory of the Republic of Nicaragua under equal conditions.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia to the EU avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretariat General of the Council of the European Union assurances of its highest consideration.

----

(1)  This notification is published in conformity with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

----
(No. 864

Claimant awarded $766.85.)

#### Florence H. Clough, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 16, 1925.*

Pbopebty *loss*— award *may be made to State employee.*This case is similar to that of *Underwood*v. *State, supra,*and the decision of the court in that case governs this claim.

Florence H. Clough, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed by Florence Clough against the State for household goods, wares and clothing, lost by her while in line of duty as an employee of the State, by fire on the 16th day of December, 1923, when the Annex of Chicago Hospital at Dunning was destroyed by fire. The facts and evidence are identical with that in case No. 831 of *Underwood*vs. *State,*opinion filed in April, 1925, and it is unnecessary to reiterate them.

The articles lost are minutely itemized, and prices seem fairly reasonable. The State is at disadvantage in getting-evidence in its defense in cases of this character, and we must depend largely on the credibility of claimants and the apparent reasonableness of the prices shown.

*109Claimant’s proven losses amount to $766.85, which sum we award to her for same reasons stated in the Underwood case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          48,284
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,724
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,718,020
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       104,660
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,906,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,158
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     9
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  750,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (750,617)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (750,617)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (705,617)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                          0
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        10
<OTHER-SE>                      (10)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.415

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 182087 dated June 30, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Data transmission services, except for data transmission services for the purpose of voice transmission

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until June 30, 2025.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated April 06, 2020 No. 145-pчc

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ A.A.   Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp   here
    	
 
    
	
Official seal:
    	
 
    
	
MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND MASS
    	
 
    
	
COMMUNICATIONS
    	
 
    
	
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
    	
 
    
	
FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
    	
 
    
	
IN THE SPHERE
    	
 
    
	
OF COMMUNICATIONS,
    	
 
    
	
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
    	
 
    
	
AND MASS MEDIA
    	
 
    
	
PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 119145
Skip to page content

United States Department of Labor

|                                                                                                                                                                            | All DOL OASAM   Advanced Search |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| A to Z | 						Site Map | 						FAQs | 						Forms | 						About DOL |  						Contact Us | 						Español |

DOL HomeAbout DOLHistory

THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH		ADMINISTRATION
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARISELA CIUCIO,

Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee for LSF10 Master Participation 

Trust; ANTHONY CIUCIO a/k/a ANTHONY O. CIUCIO a/k/a ANTHONY 

OSCAR CIUCIO; UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF ANTHONY CIUCIO; UNIFY 

AMERICAN SERVICES CORP., as Trustee under that certain Florida land 

trust dated November 23, 2012 and numbered M86-1214; UNKNOWN 

TENANT #1; UNKNOWN TENANT #2; and ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN 

PARTIES CLAIMING BY, THROUGH, UNDER, AND AGAINST THE 

HEREIN NAMED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT(S) WHO ARE NOT KNOWN 

TO BE DEAD OR ALIVE, WHETHER SAID UNKNOWN PARTIES MAY 

CLAIM AN INTEREST AS SPOUSES, HEIRS, DEVISEES, GRANTEES, 

OR OTHER CLAIMANTS,

Appellees.

No. 2D22-2311

November 15, 2023

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Melissa M. Polo, Judge.

Marisela Ciucio, pro se.

Zachary Ullman, Matthew Ciccio, and Julia Poletti of Aldridge Pite, LLP, 

Delray Beach, for Appellee U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.
2

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, C.J., and CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Louis Nizer v. Leonard Warenoff.

Present ■— Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.
§ 49.555 What procedures govern an appeal of an administrative law judge's decision? ( a ) Upon receipt of a notice of appeal filed under § 49.550(a), the OHA Director will appoint an Ad Hoc Board of Appeals to consider the appeal and issue a decision thereon.
( b ) To the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of this subpart, the rules in 43 CFR part 4, subparts A, B, and G, will apply to the appeal proceedings under § 49.550.
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/29

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 May 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VAALCO Energy, Inc. (the “**Company**”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, W. Russell Scheirman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated:August 9, 2007
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Discover Water at Dripping Springs

NPS Photo

**Distance:****Difficulty****Elevation change**

Activity FeeYes

LocationDripping Springs Trailhead

contact the park.

## ** Tags

            -  hiking 
            -  hike 
            -  organ pipe 
            -  organ pipe cactus national monument 
            -  trail 
            -  water 
            -  spring seep 
            -  dripping springs 

## ** Tags

        -  hiking 
        -  hike 
        -  organ pipe 
        -  organ pipe cactus national monument 
        -  trail 
        -  water 
        -  spring seep 
        -  dripping springs 

Last updated: January 22, 2024

----

National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior

          -  Accessibility 
          -  Privacy Policy 
          -  FOIA 
          -  Notices 
          -  Contact The National Park Service 
          -  NPS FAQ 
          -  No Fear Act 
          -  Disclaimer 
          -  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 
          -  USA.gov 
          -  Facebook 
          -  Youtube 
          -  Twitter 
          -  Instagram 
          -  Flickr