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

----

I Teave

Komisjon

----

Euro vahetuskurss (1)

12. jaanuar 2006

(2006/C 8/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Allikas: EKP avaldatud viitekurss.

----

----

Teavitamiskord — tehnilised eeskirjad

(2006/C 8/02)

(EMPs kohaldatav tekst)

Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 22. juuni 1998. aasta direktiiv 98/34/EÜ, millega nähakse ette tehnilistest standarditest ja eeskirjadest ning infoühiskonna teenuste eeskirjadest teatamise kord. (EÜT L 204, 21.7.1998, lk 37; EÜT L 217, 5.8.1998, lk 18).

Komisjonile laekunud teatised tehniliste eeskirjade eelnõude kohta

Komisjon juhib tähelepanu 30. aprillil 1996. aasta kohtuotsusele “CIA Security” kaasuses (C-194/94 — ECR I, lk 2201), milles Euroopa Ühenduste Kohus määras, et direktiivi 98/34/EÜ (endine direktiiv 83/189/EMÜ) artikleid 8 ja 9 tuleb tõlgendada nii, et üksikisikud võivad nendele siseriiklikes kohtutes tugineda, kohtud peavad aga keelduma selliste siseriiklike tehniliste eeskirjade kohaldamises, millest ei ole teatatud vastavalt nimetatud direktiivile.

See kohtuotsus kinnitab komisjoni teadet 1. oktoobrist 1986 (EÜT C 245, 1.10.1986, lk 4).

Seega muudab teatamiskohustuse rikkumine asjaomase tehnilise eeskirja kehtetuks ja seeläbi üksikisikute suhtes jõustamatuks.

Kui soovite teatamismenetluse kohta lisateavet, kirjutage palun järgmisel aadressil:

Samuti saab teavet Interneti-aadressilt http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris/

Kui vajate teatiste kohta lisateavet, võtke palun ühendust allpool loetletud siseriiklike asutustega:

DIREKTIIVI 98/34/EÜ HALDAMISE EEST VASTUTAVATE SISERIIKLIKE AMETIASUTUSTE NIMEKIRI

BELGIA

TŠEHHI VABARIIK

TAANI

SAKSAMAA

EESTI

KREEKA

HISPAANIA

PRANTSUSMAA

IIRIMAA

ITAALIA

KÜPROS

LÄTI

LEEDU

LUKSEMBURG

UNGARI

MALTA

HOLLAND

AUSTRIA

POOLA

PORTUGAL

SLOVEENIA

SLOVAKKIA

SOOME

ROOTSI

ÜHENDKUNINGRIIK

EFTA — ESA

TÜRGI

----

(1)  Aasta — registreerimisnumber — päritoluliikmesriik.

(2)  Periood, mille vältel eelnõud ei või vastu võtta.

(3)  Ooteaega ei kohaldata, kuna komisjon aktsepteerib teavitava liikmesriigi poolt esitatud kiireloomulise vastuvõtmise põhjendusi.

(4)  Ooteaega ei kohaldata, kuna meede puudutab tehnilisi spetsifikatsioone või muid eeskirju või teenuseid puudutavaid eeskirju, mis on seotud fiskaal- või finantsmeetmetega vastavalt direktiivi 98/34/EÜ artikli 1 lõike 11 teise lõigu kolmandale taandele.

(5)  Teatamismenetlus on lõpetatud.

----

----

Komisjoni teatis nõukogu direktiivi rakendamise raames 98/79/EÜ

(2006/C 8/03)

(EMPs kohaldatav tekst)

Direktiiviga seotud harmoneeritud standardite nimetuste ja tähiste avaldamine

----
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-61 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson October 16, 1997

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

E-MAIL: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC, NPPD TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

AT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a

predecisional enforcement conference Friday, October 17, with

officials of Nebraska Public Power District, the operator of

Cooper Nuclear Station, near Brownville, Nebraska, to discuss

three apparent violations of NRC requirements.

The conference will begin at 9 a.m. at NRC Region IV offices

in Arlington, Texas. The meeting will be open to public

observation; NRC officials will be available afterward for

questions.

The apparent violations consist of several examples in which

plant personnel failed to promptly recognize, document, or

correct conditions in the plant that might have affected safety.

The first apparent violation was the failure to recognize

that the accumulation of large volumes of water in certain areas

could render the standby gas treatment system inoperable. The

standby gas treatment system is an air filtration system used to

clean air from the reactor building before it exhausts to the

atmosphere under some accident conditions. The problem was not

analyzed and corrected promptly.

In the second apparent violation plant maintenance workers

failed to recognize that mud clogging the residual heat removal

system’s heat exchanger could pose a plant safety problem and did

not perform a proper analysis to address the situation.
The third apparent violation consists of an aggregation of

several instances in which potential safety problems were not

recognized and corrected promptly. Individually the problems were

of lesser significance, but together indicate the potential for a

larger problem.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference

does not mean that NRC has made a final determination that

violations did occur or that enforcement action, such as a

monetary fine, will be taken. The purpose of the meeting is to

discuss the apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance, and to provide NPPD officials with an opportunity

to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report and present corrective actions that have been

taken.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated

enforcement action will be made at this conference. Those

decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a later time.

###
EXHIBIT 7 

Case 9:20-cv-81063-RS Document 6-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 1 of 3
Case 9:20-cv-81063-RS Document 6-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 2 of 3
;35:36464 [l} Xli KIS Kvsyt Wxsgo Jipp 54) ex xli Stir sr Nyri 5;  Xli Qsxpi} Jssp

lxxtw>33{{{2jssp2gsq3mrziwxmrk3646434:35;3{l}1xli1kis1kvsyt1wxsgo1jipp1541ex1xli1stir1sr1nyr2ewt| 637

MQEKI WSYVGI> KIXX] MQEKIW

Xli gvy| sj xli mwwyi mw xli VIMX wxvygxyvi0 {lmgl epps{w gsqtermiw xs ezsmh

gsvtsvexi1pizip xe|exmsr fyx viuymviw xliq xs teww ex piewx =4) sj xlimv xe|efpi

mrgsqi sr xs wlevilsphivw2 Epxlsykl xlex viqsziw xli mwwyi sj hsyfpi xe|exmsr

erh piehw xs pevki te}syxw jsv mrziwxsvw ,{ls qywx xviex xli hmzmhirhw ew vikypev

mrgsqi jsv xe| tyvtswiw-0 mx pieziw VIMXw epqswx xsxepp} vipmerx sr xli getmxep

qevoixw xs jyrh xlimv kvs{xl mrziwxqirxw2 GsviGmzmg+w wxsgo lew fiir

perkymwlmrk ex ps{ pizipw erh mxw fsrh tvmgiw lezi fiir {ieo0 xss0 ws mxw gswx sj

getmxep lew fiir vipexmzip} lmkl2 Xlmw i|tpemrw {l} mx+w gsrwmhivmrk hvsttmrk xli

VIMX wxvygxyvi2

Xli KIS Kvsyt jegiw wmqmpev lieh{mrhw sr xli getmxep jvsrx0 ws mx qeoiw wirwi

xlex mrziwxsvw {syph fi {svvmih xlex mx xss qe} wywtirh mxw hmzmhirh erh wxevx

{imklmrk epxivrexmzi gsvtsvexi wxvygxyviw2 Xlyw0 ew mrziwxsvw wsph GsviGmzmg0 xli}

epws wsph wleviw sj Xli KIS Kvsyt2

Rs{ {lex

Epxlsykl xlivi+w rsxlmrk ex xlmw tsmrx xs wykkiwx xlex Xli KIS Kvsyt {mpp

wywtirh mxw hmzmhirh sv epxiv mxw gsvtsvexi wxvygxyvi0 wlmjxw pmoi xli sri GsviGmzmg

mw gsrwmhivmrk hs sjxir w{iit xlvsykl mrhywxv} rmgliw2 Xli tvsfpiq mw xlex0 yrxmp

Xli KIS Kvsyt gsqqirxw sr mxw mrxirxmsrw0 mrziwxsvw {mpp lezi rs mrhmgexmsr

efsyx {lex mxw tperw qmklx fi2 Yrgivxemrx} mw mr xli emv jsv xli xmqi fimrk0 erh

xlex mrgviewiw vmwow jsv mrgsqi mrziwxsvw {ls gsyrx sr xli hmzmhirhw xlmw VIMX

vikypevp} xlvs{w sjj2

54 wxsgow {i pmoi fixxiv xler Xli KIS Kvsyt0 Mrg2

[lir mrziwxmrk kirmywiw Hezmh erh Xsq Kevhriv lezi e wxsgo xmt0 mx ger te} xs

pmwxir2 Ejxiv epp0 xli ri{wpixxiv xli} lezi vyr jsv sziv e higehi0 Qsxpi} Jssp Wxsgo

Ehzmwsv0 lew xvmtpih xli qevoix2.

Hezmh erh Xsq nywx viziepih {lex xli} fipmizi evi xli xir fiwx wxsgow jsv

mrziwxsvw xs fy} vmklx rs{Í erh Xli KIS Kvsyt0 Mrg2 {ewr+x sri sj xliq% Xlex+w

vmklx 11 xli} xlmro xliwi 54 wxsgow evi izir fixxiv fy}w2

Case 9:20-cv-81063-RS Document 6-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 99.5

                                  CERTIFICATION

                        Chase Manhattan Auto Owner Trust
                           Series 2001-A (the "Trust")

I, Keith W. Schuck, the chief financial officer of Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
National Association, the depositor of assets into the above-referenced Trust ,
certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the
         Trust;
2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
         to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
         light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
         misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;
3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the sale
         and servicing agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in
         these reports;
4.       Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included
         in this annual report and required to be delivered to the trustee in
         accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, and
         except as disclosed in this annual report, the servicer has fulfilled
         its obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement; and
5.       This annual report discloses all significant deficiencies relating to
         the servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based
         upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
         conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
         Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
         sale and servicing agreement, that is included in this annual report.


Date:    March 28, 2003


/s/ Keith W. Schuck
-----------------------------
Name:    Keith W. Schuck
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Company: Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIntegrated flight/propulsion control design for a STOVL aircraft using H-infinity control design techniquesResults are presented from an application of H-infinity control design methodology to a centralized integrated flight propulsion control (IFPC) system design for a supersonic Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) fighter aircraft in transition flight. The emphasis is on formulating the H-infinity control design problem such that the resulting controller provides robustness to modeling uncertainties and model parameter variations with flight condition. Experience gained from a preliminary H-infinity based IFPC design study performed earlier is used as the basis to formulate the robust H-infinity control design problem and improve upon the previous design. Detailed evaluation results are presented for a reduced order controller obtained from the improved H-infinity control design showing that the control design meets the specified nominal performance objectives as well as provides stability robustness for variations in plant system dynamics with changes in aircraft trim speed within the transition flight envelope. A controller scheduling technique which accounts for changes in plant control effectiveness with variation in trim conditions is developed and off design model performance results are presented.Document ID19910011827Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsGarg, Sanjay*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Ouzts, Peter J.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1991Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:104340E-6113NASA-TM-104340Meeting InformationMeeting: American Control ConferenceLocation: Boston, MACountry: United StatesStart Date: June 26, 1991End Date: June 28, 1991Sponsors:the American Automatic Control CouncilAccession Number91N21140Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-50Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910011827.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Sam Rice and Others v. Edwin D. Miner.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00300-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.J.M. and H.J.M., Children

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 29724

Honorable Sergio J. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that Nichole Martin recover her costs of this appeal from Ariel 

Mejia. 

SIGNED March 18, 2015.

_____________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice
---

---

Exhibit 15.4

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-156686) of
our report dated April 26, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Sapiens International Corporation N.V., included in this annual report on Form 20-F of
Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

| |                   |                                   
| | ----------------- | ----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
| | Tel- Aviv, Israel | /s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kaiserer
| | April 26, 2009    | KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KAISERER    
| |                   | A Member of Ernst & Young Global  



---

---
§ 3602.31 What volume limitations and fees generally apply to noncompetitive mineral materials sales? ( a ) BLM may sell, at not less than fair market value, and without advertising or calling for bids, mineral materials not greater than 200,000 cubic yards (or weight equivalent) in any individual sale, when BLM determines it to be: ( 1 ) In the public interest; and
( 2 ) Impracticable to obtain competition.
( b ) BLM will charge the purchaser a processing fee on a case-by-case basis as described in § 3000.11 of this chapter.
( c ) BLM will not approve multiple noncompetitive sales that exceed a total of 300,000 cubic yards (or weight equivalent) made in any one State for the benefit of any one purchaser, whether an individual, partnership, corporation, or other entity, in any period of 12 consecutive months.
( d ) The volume limitations in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section do not apply to sales in the State of Alaska that BLM determines are needed for construction, operation, maintenance, or termination of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System or the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System.
( e ) The volume limitations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply if: ( 1 ) BLM determines that circumstances make it impossible to obtain competition; or
( 2 ) There is insufficient time to invite competitive bids, because of an emergency situation affecting public property, health, or safety.
[66 FR 58901, Nov. 23, 2001, as amended at 70 FR 58878, Oct. 7, 2005; 73 FR 35592, June 24, 2008]
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Errin SHEARD, Appellant.

No. 05-1295.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Jan. 13, 2006.

Filed: Feb. 22, 2006.

George S. Leone, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, Sabrina G. Comizzoli, for Appellee.

Christopher H. O’Malley, Office of Federal Public Defender, Camden, NJ, for Appellant.

Before: ROTH, FUENTES, and ROSENN,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Judge Rosenn passed away before the release of this opinion.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

While serving a sentence for bank robbery, Errin Sheard was convicted of simple assault against a corrections officer, Christopher Johnson. Sheard hit Johnson in the nose while the two were in a prison stairwell, and Johnson received medical treatment. Sheard testified at trial that he swung at Johnson in self-defense after Johnson hit him in the back of the head and tried to throw him to the ground. In support of his self-defense claim, Sheard attempted to cross-examine two government witnesses at trial about Johnson’s reputation for aggressive behavior, but the District Court refused to allow the questioning. Sheard now appeals, arguing that the District Court should not have excluded this line of cross-examination.1

This Court reviews a District Court’s decision on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Serafini*233 F.3d 758, 768 n. 14 (3d Cir. 2000). However, we exercise plenary review over the Court’s construction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. *United States v. Johnson,*388 F.3d 96, 100 (3d Cir.2004).

After considering the record and the submissions of the parties, we conclude that Sheard’s claims on appeal are without merit. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

1

. The District Court had jurisdiction over this federal criminal case pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. 3231. This Court has jurisdiction over Sheard’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case Number: 20-22935-CIV-MORENO

WINDY LUCIUS, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA, LLC,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND ORDER

DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice

(D.E. 11), filed on September 24, 2020. 

THE COURT has considered the notice and the pertinent portions of the record, and is 

otherwise fully advised in the premises. It is

ADJUDGED that this Cause is DISMISSED with prejudice, with each party bearing its 

own fees and costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court reserves jurisdiction for six months 

to enforce the terms of the settlement. Further, all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT with 

leave to renew if appropriate. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 28th of September 2020.

______________________________________

FEDERICO A. MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22935-FAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 1 of 1
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323

Tel. 404-331-5503 or 7878

No.: II-96-53 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark 404-331-5503 (Tuesday, June 11,

1996)

Roger Hannah 404-331-7878

OCONEE NUCLEAR PLANT RATED “SUPERIOR” IN THREE

AREAS, “GOOD” IN FOURTH AREA OF NRC ASSESSMENT REPORT

The Oconee nuclear power plant received performance ratings of “superior” in plant

operations, engineering and plant support, and “good” in maintenance in the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission's latest systematic assessment of licensee performance (SALP)

of the facility.

The SALP report was sent June 10 to Duke Power Company, which operates the facility

near Seneca, South Carolina. It evaluates the plant's performance from October 30,

1994, through May 4 of this year.

NRC and Duke Power Company officials will discuss the report during a meeting set for

1:00 p.m. Thursday, June 27, at the Oconee site. The meeting will be open for public

observation. NRC officials will be available after the meeting to speak with reporters,

state and local officials, and members of the public.

NRC systematic assessment reports rate licensees in four functional areas — plant

operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support — and assign ratings of

Category 1, 2 or 3 depending on whether their performance in those areas was superior,

good or adequate. The report on Oconee gives the plant a Category 1 rating in plant

operations, engineering and plant support, indicating “superior” performance, and a

Category 2 rating in maintenance, indicating “good” performance. In the previous SALP

report in 1994, the plant received a 1 in plant support and 2's in plant operations,

engineering and maintenance.

In his cover letter to the report, NRC Regional Administrator Stewart Ebneter said

“Oconee’s performance improved markedly during this period in the functional areas of

engineering and operations, with sustained superior performance in the area of plant

support.” Ebneter attributed the improvement in part to “an aggressive self-assessment

and corrective action program.”

In the letter, Ebneter said performance in the maintenance area remained good “with

notable improvement in some areas.” However, he pointed to challenges remaining in

fuel handling, human performance and equipment failures.

###

EDITORS: A copy of the full SALP report is available from this office.
§ 304.3 Conditions for a consolidated grant. ( a ) In order to participate, an insular area must submit a (one-time) administrative plan as provided for in FEMA guidance material (to be maintained in current status) and must sign a (one-time) civil rights assurance and a (one-time) grant agreement agreeing to comply with Federal requirements.
( b ) An insular area need not submit an application for a consolidated grant, but must submit an annual program paper which meets the requirements prescribed in FEMA guidance material.
( c ) Funds made available under a consolidated grant must be expended for State and local management program expenses and/or State and local maintenance and services program expenses as defined and described in FEMA guidance material. Each participating insular area will determine the proportion in which funds granted to it will be allocated between the two programs.
( d ) Participating insular areas need not provide matching funds for consolidated grants.
[43 FR 39776, Sept. 7, 1978. Redesignated at 44 FR 56173, Sept. 28, 1979, as amended at 50 FR 40007, Oct. 1, 1985]