alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2005. Appraisal of goods taken on execution

Whenever State law requires that goods taken on execution be appraised before sale, goods taken under execution issued from a court of the United States shall be appraised in like manner.

The United States marshal shall summon the appraisers in the same manner as the sheriff is required to summon appraisers under State law.

If the appraisers fail to attend and perform their required duties, the marshal may sell the goods without an appraisal. Appraisers attending and performing their duties, shall receive the fees allowed for appraisals under State law.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 959.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §846 (R.S. §993).

Words "shall be appraised in like manner" were substituted for "the appraisers appointed under the authority of the State may appraise goods taken in execution on a fieri facias issued out of any court of the United States". The change precludes construction that the State appraisers only are available to appraise such goods in civil actions in the federal courts.

Changes were made in phraseology.
#### Modern Silver Linen Supply Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Sol Goldberg et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Peck] P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-77 September 10, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS WITH HOWARD UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with

representatives of Howard University Hospital on Monday, September

13, to discuss several apparent violations of agency requirements.

The apparent violations pertain to the handling and control of

radioactive materials by the Washington, D.C., hospital.

The predecisional enforcement conference is scheduled to

begin at 1 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region I

office in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public for

observation.

Three apparent violations were identified by NRC staff

during a special inspection conducted at the hospital on July 27

and 28, and during a telephone interview on August 10. The

inspection was performed to review the facility’s procedures for

receipt and control of NRC-licensed radioactive materials following

several incidents over the last year.

On August 26, 1998, the hospital reported that a package

containing 1.3 millicuries of iodine-131 was inadvertently

discarded in the waste. This material was later recovered from a

commercial waste-hauling facility, where it triggered radiation

alarms and was identified to belong to Howard University. Then, on

May 17 of this year, the hospital informed the NRC it did not

receive a package holding 1.1 millicuries of iodine-131 that it

expected to receive that day. This issue remains unresolved

because the vendor had no proof the material was delivered to the

hospital. Lastly, on July 13, the facility reported the loss of a

package containing 2 millicuries of iodine-125.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference

does not mean that a determination has been made that violations

have occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. The purpose

is to discuss the apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity to point

out errors that may have been made in NRC inspection reports; and

to enable the licensee to outline its proposed corrective actions.
No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated

enforcement action, such as a civil penalty, will be made at the

conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a

later time.

#
Order filed June 27, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-13-00029-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.R., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 161st District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. B-2980-PC

O R D E R

In this appeal, Appellant, B.B.R., challenges the trial court’s order 

terminating her parental rights to her child, M.R. Before us is a motion filed by 

Appellee, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, joined by 

Appellant, entitled, “Joint Motion to Render Judgment Effectuating Agreement of 

the Parties.” The motion states the parties’ agreement as follows: “The 

Department and [Appellant] agree that the portion of the judgment below 

terminating [Appellant’s] rights to M.R. should be reversed and the matter 
2

remanded for a de novo trial before the referring court.” The parties ask us to enter 

a judgment in accordance with the agreement of the parties, ordering that the 

portion of the order below terminating B.B.R.’s parental rights to M.R. be reversed 

and remanded for a de novo trial and that all other aspects of the order remain 

undisturbed. For the reasons set forth herein, the joint motion is overruled.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) sets forth the actions an 

appellate court may take on the agreement of the parties for disposition of the 

appeal:

(A) render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreements;

(B) set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the 

merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment 

in accordance with the agreements; or

(C) abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to 

effectuate the agreement.

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). The relief requested here does not come within any of 

the permissible means for disposition specified by the rule. Without an agreement 

on the merits of the appeal, the parties seek a disposition requiring a finding of 

reversible error. We are not authorized “to order a new trial merely on the 

agreement of the parties absent reversible error.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1 notes & 

cmts.; In re Z.A.S., No. 07-09-0136-CV, 2009 WL 2567948 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 

Aug. 20, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). For that reason, the motion as presented is 

overruled.

PER CURIAM

June 27, 2013

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1557-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-1557-DR), dated September 19, 2004, and related determinations.

# DATES:

Effective Date: October 1, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective October 1, 2004.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)

Michael D. Brown,

Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 04-23325 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Stephan Kuppenheimer, 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 Merrill Lynch
Depositor, Inc., on behalf of PreferredPLUS Trust Series BLC-1;

         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 depositor by the trustee under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

         4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement
and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee
have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

         5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
compliance by the depositor or trustee with the minimum servicing or similar
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 pooling
or servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York and
its officers and agents.


Date:  March 29, 2005                         /s/ Stephan Kuppenheimer
                                              ---------------------------------
                                                President
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5582-5583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Importer of Controlled Substances Notice of Registration

    By notice dated October 7, 2003, and published in the Federal 
Register on October 29, 2003 (68 FR 61700), ISP Freetown Fine 
Chemicals, 238 Main South Street, Assonet, Massachusetts 02702, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as an importer of Phenylacetone (8501), a basic class of 
controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
    The firm plans to import Phenylacetone to manufacture amphetamine.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in title 21, United States Code, section 823(a) and 
determined that the registration of ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals to 
import the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public 
interest and with United States obligations under international 
treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this 
time. DEA has investigated ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals on a regular 
basis to ensure that the company's continued

[[Page 5583]]

registration is consistent with the public interest. This investigation 
included inspection and testing of the company's physical security 
systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local 
laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 1008(a) of the Controlled Substances Import and 
Export Act and in accordance with Title 21, Code of Federal 
Regulations, section 1301.34, the above firm is granted registration as 
an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: December 24, 2003.
Laura M. Nagel,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-2340 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
```
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.309 Response to an appeal petition. ( a ) *Who may respond.* Any person served with an appeal petition, any intervenor, or any person with a general interest in an issue raised by the appeal may file and serve a response supporting or opposing the appeal. The response should present argument.
( b ) *Time limits.* The Judge will issue a Notice and Order informing the parties of the filing of the appeal petition, establishing the close of record as 15 days after service of the Notice and Order, and informing the parties that OHA must receive any responses to the appeal petition no later than the close of record.
( c ) *Service.* The respondent must serve its response upon the appellant and upon each of the persons identified in the certificate of service attached to the appeal petition pursuant to § 134.305.
( d ) *Reply to a response.* No reply to a response will be permitted unless the Judge directs otherwise.
[61 FR 2683, Jan. 29, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 47250, July 18, 2002]
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.413 Validity of certification.

A certification that is completed, signed and dated in accordance with the requirements listed in § 10.411 of this subpart will be accepted by CBP as valid for four years from the date on which the certification was signed. If the Center director determines that a certification is illegible or defective or has not been completed in accordance with § 10.411 of this subpart, the importer will be given a period of not less than five business days to submit a corrected certification.

[CBP Dec. 05-07, 70 FR 10873, Mar. 7, 2005, as amended by CBP Dec. 06-39, 71 FR 76132, Dec. 20, 2006]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-54 June 4, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC PROPOSES $5,500 FINE FOR PENNSYLVANIA MAN

FOR VIOLATION INVOLVING POSSESSION AND USE OF NUCLEAR GAUGES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$5,500 fine against a Havertown (Delaware County), Pa., man for

failing to properly dispose of nuclear gauges in his possession.

Alfonso DeLeo Jr. was licensed by the NRC to possess and use

gauges containing radioactive material, specifically cesium-137

and americium-241. The devices are used for various industrial

and construction purposes, such as measuring moisture levels in

soil.

In September 1993, the NRC notified DeLeo that he was

required to renew his license and pay annual user fees to the

agency -- something he had not done for the preceding two years.

DeLeo responded that he planned to terminate the license and

transfer the two gauges in his possession to an authorized user.

However, an NRC inspection in November 1994 determined he still

possessed the devices. Further, he had still not paid the annual

fees.

As a result of the continued non-payment of the fees, the

NRC issued an order suspending DeLeo’s license on February 12,

1996.

Despite repeated subsequent notices of the need to dispose

of the gauges, an NRC inspection/investigation on April 1 of this

year disclosed that DeLeo still had them in his possession.

NRC Region I Administrator Hubert J. Miller wrote to DeLeo

on June 2, stating that he was in “willful violation” of agency

requirements, which is a “significant regulatory concern because

the conduct of licensed activities in accordance with the (Atomic

Energy) Act and the Commission’s requirements depends largely on

the integrity of individuals. Your continued possession of

licensed material, despite the notifications made to you, is

particularly serious.”

Before imposition of the fine, the NRC will grant DeLeo a

grace period of 30 days to transfer the gauges to an authorized

user. But if the devices are still in his possession at the end
of that period, the agency will consider, in addition to the

$5,500 civil penalty, fines of $500 per day.

#
Document

Exhibit 4.17

Summary of BSA Plan


Warrants, or BSAs (bons de souscription d’actions), may be granted by our executive board to third-party service providers and members of our supervisory board that are not eligible for stock options. Warrants entitle a holder to exercise the warrants for the underlying vested shares at an exercise price per share determined by our executive board that will be at least equal to the fair market value of an ordinary share on the date of grant. In addition to such exercise price, warrants are subscribed for at a price determined by the executive board that is meant to reflect the fair market value of the applicable warrants on the grant date.


Administration. Pursuant to share delegations granted at our general meeting of the shareholders, our executive board (with the prior approval of the supervisory board) determines the recipients of the warrants, the grant dates, the number and exercise price of the warrants to be granted, the number of shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants and certain other terms and conditions of the warrants, including the period of their exercisability and their vesting schedule.  There is no legal limitation to the size of the warrant pool, other than the shareholders’ share delegation.


Warrants Terms.  The term of warrants is determined by the executive board within the limits set by the delegations granted by the shareholders. The term of our warrants may not exceed ten years, and is generally five or ten years from the date of grant. The supervisory and executive boards may decide that warrants must be exercised within six months from (i) the death or disability of the holder or (ii) the termination of the holder from employment with us or any of our affiliates during the term of the warrants.


Change in Control.  Unless otherwise decided by our supervisory and executive boards, in the event of a merger into another corporation or the sale by one or several shareholders, acting alone or in concert, of Nanobiotix S.A. to one or several third parties of a number of shares resulting in a change of control (a “Liquidity Event”), the right of any holder to exercise outstanding warrants will be accelerated so that all such warrants may be exercised with effect immediately prior to the completion of the relevant Liquidity Event, subject, if applicable, to continued service by the warrant holder. Unless otherwise decided by our supervisory and executive boards, any warrant not exercised for any reason prior to the date of completion of the relevant Liquidity Event will automatically lapse.


Specified Exercise Thresholds. Warrants become exercisable pursuant to a vesting schedule, and subject to such conditions, to be decided by our executive board.


Vesting Period. Subject to any specified conditions and thresholds established by our executive board, warrants will vest according to a schedule decided by our executive board. 


Transfers. Vested warrants may be transferred to any family member of the holder, provided that such transfer is not for value, and is permissible in accordance with applicable law, including U.S. securities laws.
467 P.2d 1000

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacob Leroy MINNS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 432.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

March 27, 1970.

*429Earl E. Hartley, Hartley, Olson & Ba-ca, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, F. Stephen Boone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

SPIESS, Chief Judge.

Defendant was' convicted of having indecently handled and touched a girl under the age of sixteen years. The case was affirmed in State v. Minns, 80 N.M. 269, 454 P.2d 355 (Ct.App.1969). Thereafter defendant filed an application for post-conviction relief under Rule 93 [§ 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1967)].

The trial court in its order stated that the files and records of the case conclusively show that petitioner (defendant) was not entitled to the relief prayed for and accordingly denied the motion from which this appeal followed.

Points relied upon for reversal are five in number.

> “Point I: Under the circumstances of this case appellant was prejudiced by the giving of the so-called ‘shot-gun instruction’, thus denying him a fair trial by jury.

> “Point II: The ‘shotgun instruction’ given contained additional wording never before approved in New Mexico which denied appellant the right to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

> “Point III: The newly discovered evidence contained in affidavit form goes to the very credibility of the complaining witness.

> “Point IV: The statute under which appellant was convicted denies him of due process as it applies to him because of uncertainty and vagueness.

> “Point V: Testimony of acts taking place outside of the scope of the indictment served to inflame the jury to the prejudice of the appellant and to deny him of due process.”

The Points I, II, IV and V are addressed to matters considered and found without merit in State v. Minns, supra. The Supreme Court and this court have uniformly held that a Rule 93 motion may not be used to reconsider matters which have been considered and disposed of on appeal. State v. Blackwell, 79 N.M. 230, 441 P.2d 759 (1968); State v. Williams, 78 N.M. 431, 432 P.2d 396 (1967); State v. Selgado, 78 N.M. 165, 429 P.2d 363 (1967); State v. McAfee, 80 N.M. 739, 460 P.2d 1023 (Ct.App.1969).

Point III, while indicating that it relates to newly discovered evidence, actually asserts that the conviction resulted in whole or in part from perjured testimony. In support of this assertion an affidavit is attached to defendant’s motion containing a statement to the effect that material testimony at the trial was false. If the affidavit be true, a basis for post-conviction relief was nevertheless not established, in that defendant has not shown, nor does he assert that the particular testimony was known to be false by the agents of or counsel for the state. Sears v. United States, 265 F.2d 301 (5th Cir. 1959).

If defendant’s conviction was based upon perjury his remedy is by application for executive clemency not by a motion pursuant to Rule 93. Hickman v. United States, 246 F.2d 178 (8th Cir. 1957).

The order denying relief is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

OMAN and WOOD, JJ., concur.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3885 — Apax/Barclays/Tchenguiz/Somerfield/JV)

(2005/C 300/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 18 November 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----