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

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 27 October 2005

in Case C-166/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Protection of wild birds and their habitats - Special protection areas - Messolongi Lagoon)

(2005/C 330/09)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-166/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Patakia and M. van Beek) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 2 April 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, P. Kūris (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004

----
# Eiropas Savienības C 18A/2006

| | ISSN 1725-5201 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 18A |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 49. sējums2006. gada 25. janvāris |

ISSN 1725-5201

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 18A

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

49. sējums2006. gada 25. janvāris

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Paziņojumi |
| | Eiropas Pārtikas nekaitīguma iestāde |
| 2006/C 018A/1 | Aicinājums pieteikties konkursam par dalību Eiropas Pārtikas nekaitīguma iestādes zinātniskajā komitejā un zinātnes ekspertu grupās (Pretendentu pieteikšanās galatermiņš ir pagarināts līdz 2006. gada 17. februārim) | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

III   Paziņojumi

Eiropas Pārtikas nekaitīguma iestāde

2006/C 018A/1

Aicinājums pieteikties konkursam par dalību Eiropas Pārtikas nekaitīguma iestādes zinātniskajā komitejā un zinātnes ekspertu grupās (Pretendentu pieteikšanās galatermiņš ir pagarināts līdz 2006. gada 17. februārim)

1

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

III Paziņojumi

Eiropas Pārtikas nekaitīguma iestāde

| 25.1.2006 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 18/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2006

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 18/1

---

AICINĀJUMS PIETEIKTIES KONKURSAM PAR DALĪBU EIROPAS PĀRTIKAS NEKAITĪGUMA IESTĀDES ZINĀTNISKAJĀ KOMITEJĀ UN ZINĀTNES EKSPERTU GRUPĀS

(Pretendentu pieteikšanās galatermiņš ir pagarināts līdz 2006. gada 17. februārim)

(2006/C 18 A/01)

Kā publicēts 2005. gada 22. novembra Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī C-289A, 6. lpp., pieteikumi ir jānosūta līdz 2006. gada 7. janvārim. Tomēr, ņemot vērā problēmas, kas periodiski rodas, tiešsaistē nosūtot elektroniskus pieteikumus, jo īpaši pieteikšanās pēdējā nedēļā, pretendentu pieteikšanās galatermiņš ir pagarināts līdz piektdienai, 2006. gada 17. februārim.

Šis ir aicinājums zinātniekiem, kas vēlas piedalīties Eiropas Pārtikas nekaitīguma iestādes zinātniskajā komitejā vai zinātnes ekspertu grupā. EFSA ir izveidota ar Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2002. gada 28. janvāra Regulu (EK) Nr. 178/2002, ar ko nosaka pārtikas aprites tiesību aktu vispārīgus principus un prasības, izveido Eiropas Pārtikas nekaitīguma iestādi (EFSA), kā arī nosaka procedūras saistībā ar pārtikas nekaitīgumu. Iestādes pastāvīgā mītne atrodas Parmā, Itālijā.

---
#### THE CITY OF MITCHELL, Respondent, v. MITCHELL POWER CO., Appellant.

(190 N. W. 1013.)

(File No. 4798.

Opinion filed December 12, 1922.)

Gas — Rates—Franchise—Presumptions—Injunctions—Rates Specified in Franchise Presumed Reasonable in Absence of Contrary Showing.

While a city and a gas company were powerless to make an irrevocable contract as to rates, yet the rate specified in the franchise, in the absence of negative allegations, will be presumed to be a reasonable rate, for the purpose of considering the sufficiency of a complaint on demurrer, and on a hearing for a motion for a temporary injunction a like force will be given to such specified rate, in the absence of affidavits tending to- show that it is unreasonable.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Davison County; Hon. Frank B. Smith, Judge.

Action by the City of Mitchell against Mitchell Power Company. From an order overruling the demurrer to the complaint, and granting an injunction pendente lite, defendant appeals. Order

affirmed.

*Spangler & Wire,*of Mitchell, for Appellant.

*F. W. Mitchell*and *Laurits Miller,*'both of Mitchell, for Respondent.

'Appellant cited: City of Lead v: Western Gas & Fuel Co.; 44 S. D. 510; Southern Iowa Electric Co. v. City of Chariton, *111(U. S.), 65 L. Ed. 514; San Antonio v. San Antonio Pub. Service Co., (U. S.), 65 L. Ed. 518.

Respondent cited: San Antonio Traction Co. v. *Altgeld, 200-*U. S. 304, 50 L. Ed. 592; Grand Rapids & Ind. Ry. v. Ogden, 193 U. S. 17, 48 L. Ed. 598; Omaha Gas Co. v. City of Omaha, 249 Fed. 350.

GATES, P'. J.

This action was begun to enjoin defendant from charging consumers of gas a rate in excess of the maximum rate specified in its franchise and1 from discontinuing its service. Plaintiff moved for a temporary injunction. Defendant demurred to the complaint for want of facts. The hearing on both was had at the same time upon the pleadings and an affidavit of pláintiff’s attorney corroborating the allegations of the complaint. In one order the.trial court overruled defendant’s demurrer to the con> plaint and granted an injunction pendente lite. Defendant appeals.

Appellant relies upon the cases hereinafter cited. While the city and the defendant’s predecessor were powerless to make an irrevocable contract as to rates (City of Lead v. Western Gas & Fuel Co., 44 S. D. 510, 184 N. W. 244; Id, 45 S. D. 280, 187 N. W. 162; City of Mitchell v. Board of R. R. Corners, 44 S. D. 430, 184 N. W. 246), yet the rate specified in the franchise will, in the absence of negative allegations, be presumed to be a reasonable rate for the purpose of considering the sufficiency of the complaint, on demurrer. And upon the, hearing of a motion for a temporary injunction the like force would be given to such specified rate, in the absence of affidavits tending to show such rate to be unreasonable.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Note — Reported in 190 N. W. 1013. See American Key-Numbered Digest, Gas, Key-No. 14(1), 28 C. J. Sec. 40.
Flathorn - Gegoka Ski Trails

1

2.9

37.7

1.9

1.8

1.2

0.9

0.8

1.1

0.7

0.6

1.3

1.4

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

1.9

0.8

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.5

0.4

0.6

0.9

0.8

0.6

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.8

0.3

0.1

0 0.5 1

Kilometers

0 0.5 1

Miles

24

23

22

21

20

19

12

11

13

14

15

16

5

18

1

2

3

17

9

6

7

8

10

MN 1

Co 702

Mitawan Lk Rd

Flathorn Lake

Lake Gegoka

This is a georeferenced map for use with wayfinding apps such as Avenza. It may also be used as a standard hard copy map. For more 

information regarding skiing in this area, see the Superior National Forest's Recreational Opportunity Guide available online at 

www.fs.usda.gov/activity/superior/recreation/wintersports 

Digital maps are not intended as primary sources of navigation. Always bring a hard copy map with you. Batteries will go dead, especially in 

cold weather.

The USDA Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. Using GIS products 

for purposes other than those for which they were intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The USDA Forest Service reserves 

the right to correct, update, modify or replace GIS products without notification.
### §5672. Penalty for failure of brewer to comply with requirements and to keep records and file returns

Every brewer who, otherwise than with intent to defraud the United States, fails or refuses to keep the records and file the returns required by section 5415 and regulations issued pursuant thereto, or refuses to permit any internal revenue officer to inspect his records in the manner provided, or violates any of the provisions of subchapter G or regulations issued pursuant thereto shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, for each such offense.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1408.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5672, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 696, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.
### §7478. Declaratory judgments relating to status of certain governmental obligations

#### (a) Creation of remedy

In a case of actual controversy involving—

(1) a determination by the Secretary whether interest on prospective obligations will be excludable from gross income under section 103(a), or

(2) a failure by the Secretary to make a determination with respect to any matter referred to in paragraph (1),

upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, the Tax Court may make a declaration whether interest on such prospective obligations will be excludable from gross income under section 103(a). Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a decision of the Tax Court and shall be reviewable as such.

#### (b) Limitations

#### (1) Petitioner

A pleading may be filed under this section only by the prospective issuer.

#### (2) Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The court shall not issue a declaratory judgment or decree under this section in any proceeding unless it determines that the petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies within the Internal Revenue Service. A petitioner shall be deemed to have exhausted its administrative remedies with respect to a failure of the Secretary to make a determination with respect to an issue of obligations at the expiration of 180 days after the date on which the request for such determination was made if the petitioner has taken, in a timely manner, all reasonable steps to secure such determination.

#### (3) Time for bringing action

If the Secretary sends by certified or registered mail notice of his determination as described in subsection (a)(1) to the petitioner, no proceeding may be initiated under this section unless the pleading is filed before the 91st day after the date of such mailing.

(Added Pub. L. 95–600, title III, §336(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2841; amended Pub. L. 100–647, title I, §1013(a)(42), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3544.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–647 substituted "whether interest on prospective obligations will be excludable from gross income under section 103(a)" for "whether prospective obligations are described in section 103(a)" in par. (1) and "whether interest on such prospective obligations will be excludable from gross income under section 103(a)" for "whether such prospective obligations are described in section 103(a)" in concluding provisions.

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

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–647 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, to which such amendment relates, see section 1019(a) of Pub. L. 100–647, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 95–600, title III, §336(d), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2842, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [enacting this section and amending sections 7456, 7476, 7477, and 7482 of this title] shall apply to requests for determinations made after December 31, 1978."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO: 20-81166-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS

HOWARD COHAN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PHOENIX OF WEST PALM BEACH LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER CLOSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Parties’ Joint Stipulation for Dismissal 

with Prejudice, filed on September 4, 2020. (DE 12). The Court congratulates the Parties on their 

amicable resolution of this matter and notes that pursuant to Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 

677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2012), the Parties’ Stipulation is self-executing and no Order of the Court 

is required to dismiss this action. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE THIS CASE. All 

pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

SIGNED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 8th day of September, 2020.

Donald M. Middlebrooks

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-81166-DMM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 1 of 1
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-98-93 August 4, 1998

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials of Consolidated Edison

Company of New York on Friday, August 7, to discuss the company’s assessment of the

effectiveness of performance improvement initiatives at its Indian Point 2 reactor in Buchanan,

NY.

The meeting, which is open to the public for observation, begins at 11:30 a.m., in the

Energy Education Center at the site.

#
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 amendment to the annual report of Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nir Feller, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, that to my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.




Date:  May 10, 2010
/s/ Nir FellerNir FellerChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-61382-RAR

JOSEPH AMODIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

RESURGENT CAPITAL 

SERVICES, L.P., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF TRANSFER

GOOD CAUSE appearing that a transfer of this case is appropriate pursuant to Internal 

Operating Procedure 2.15.00(c) of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida because of related Case Number 20-CIV-61297-RKA, and subject to the consent of the 

Honorable Judge Roy K. Altman, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled case is transferred to the calendar 

of Judge Roy K. Altman for all further proceedings. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 11th day of September, 2020.

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:20-cv-61382-RKA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2020 Page 1 of 2
After reviewing the file in the above-styled case, the undersigned accepts the transfer of 

this case. Therefore, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all pleadings filed after this date shall bear the 

following case number, 20-CIV-61382-RKA, indicating the Judge to whom all pleadings should 

be routed.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 11th day of September 2020.

________________________________________

ROY K. ALTMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:20-cv-61382-RKA Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2020 Page 2 of 2
### §606. Duties of Deputy Director

The Deputy Director shall perform the duties assigned to him by the Director, and shall act as Director during the absence or incapacity of the Director or when the Director's office is vacant.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 915; Pub. L. 86–370, §5(a)(1), Sept. 23, 1959, 73 Stat. 652.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §444 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §302, as added Aug. 7, 1939, ch. 501, §1, 53 Stat. 1223).

This section contains provisions as to duties of Assistant Director in section 444 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The remainder of said section 444 is incorporated in sections 601, 603 and 608 of this title.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1959—Pub. L. 86–370 substituted "Deputy Director" for "Assistant Director".

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

#### Effective Date of 1959 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 86–370 effective Sept. 23, 1959, see section 7(a) of Pub. L. 86–370.

#### Reference to Assistant Director Deemed Reference to Deputy Director

References in any other law to Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts deemed to be reference to the Deputy Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, see note set out under section 601 of this title.
### §653. Neutrals

(a) Panel of Neutrals.—Each district court that authorizes the use of alternative dispute resolution processes shall adopt appropriate processes for making neutrals available for use by the parties for each category of process offered. Each district court shall promulgate its own procedures and criteria for the selection of neutrals on its panels.

(b) Qualifications and Training.—Each person serving as a neutral in an alternative dispute resolution process should be qualified and trained to serve as a neutral in the appropriate alternative dispute resolution process. For this purpose, the district court may use, among others, magistrate judges who have been trained to serve as neutrals in alternative dispute resolution processes, professional neutrals from the private sector, and persons who have been trained to serve as neutrals in alternative dispute resolution processes. Until such time as rules are adopted under chapter 131 of this title relating to the disqualification of neutrals, each district court shall issue rules under section 2071(a) relating to the disqualification of neutrals (including, where appropriate, disqualification under section 455 of this title, other applicable law, and professional responsibility standards).

(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, §901(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4660; amended Pub. L. 105–315, §5, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2995.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to neutrals in alternative dispute resolution process for provisions relating to powers of arbitrator and arbitration hearing.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C ARLOS FOSTER , Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. TIM V. VIR GA, W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15687

D.C . No. 2:13-c v-02138-KJM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Kim be rly J. M ue lle r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. C arlos Foste r a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha

be a s pe tition. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED JAN 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).The distric t c ourt dismisse d Foste r’ s ha be a s pe tition on the

ba sis tha t it wa s an una uthoriz e d se c ond or suc c e ssive pe tition. The c o urt gra nte d a c e rtific ate of a ppe a la bility on the issue of whe the r Foste r ne e de d pe rm ission to file the se c ond pe tition given tha

t the first pe t ition wa s de n ie d a s untim e ly . S e e , e .g., C ook v . Ry an , 688 F.3d 598, 608 (9th C ir. 2012). Foster ha s not a ddre s se d this issue on a ppe a l a nd ha s the re b y

wa ive d a ny c h a l le nge to the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l. Se e W omac k v . De l Papa , 497 F.3d 998, 1004 (9th C ir. 2007). W e tre at Foste r’ s a lle gations re ga rding ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l, ne wly disc ove re d DNA e vide nc e , a nd c um ulative e rror, a s a

m otion to e xpa

nd the c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility , a nd we de ny the m otion. Se e9th C ir. R . 22-1(e ); Hiiv ala v . W

ood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th C ir. 1999) (pe r c uriam ). Foste r’ s m otion to dism

iss the answe ring brie f is de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 6 8 7 2
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 433

**Question 433:** Question 397 concerns a reporting requirement in "reactor technical specifications." Does this question, and the answer provided, apply to non-power reactors?

**Answer:** No. Question 397 and its answer refer to reporting requirements contained in technical specifications for power reactors, but not in technical specifications for non-power reactors. Question 397 also refers to Regulatory Guide 1.16, "Reporting of Operating Information - Appendix A Technical Specifications," which applies only to nuclear power plants.

(Reference: Reactor Technical Specifications)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
### §622. Meetings; conduct of business

(a) Regular meetings of the Board shall be held quarterly. Special meetings shall be held from time to time upon the call of the Chairman, acting at his own discretion or pursuant to the petition of any four members.

(b) Each member of the Board shall be entitled to one vote. A simple majority of the membership shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business. The Board shall act upon the concurrence of a simple majority of the members present and voting.

(Added Pub. L. 90–219, title I, §101, Dec. 20, 1967, 81 Stat. 665.)