alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2017300EN.01002401.xml

| 16.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 300/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 300/24

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 80/2016

of 29 April 2016

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2017/2030]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1137 of 13 July 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards the maximum level of Ochratoxin A in Capsicum spp. spices (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1137 of 13 July 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards the maximum level of Ochratoxin A in Capsicum spp. spices (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | This Decision concerns legislation regarding foodstuffs. Legislation regarding foodstuffs shall not apply to Liechtenstein as long as the application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is extended to Liechtenstein, as specified in the introduction to Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement. This Decision is therefore not to apply to Liechtenstein. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

This Decision concerns legislation regarding foodstuffs. Legislation regarding foodstuffs shall not apply to Liechtenstein as long as the application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is extended to Liechtenstein, as specified in the introduction to Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement. This Decision is therefore not to apply to Liechtenstein.

| (3) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 54zzzz (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006) of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32015 R 1137: Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1137 of 13 July 2015 (OJ L 185, 14.7.2015, p. 11).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32015 R 1137: Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1137 of 13 July 2015 (OJ L 185, 14.7.2015, p. 11).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) 2015/1137 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 30 April 2016, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 29 April 2016.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Claude MAERTEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 185, 14.7.2015, p. 11.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### Amie I. Adams, Appellant, v. John Gordon, Appellee.

Gen. No. 5,866.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. Chakles Whitney, Judge, presiding. Transferred to Supreme Court.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Opinion filed April 15, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Bill by Amie I. Adams against J ohn Gordon praying for an injunction restraining defendant from interfering with her use of a path and well, claiming an easement therein,' It appeared that defendant owned a *287tract of land and conveyed a portion of the same to complainant’s grantor, whose contract of sale gave him the right to nse a well and its appurtenances and a path not exceeding eight feet in width leading to the well located on that part of the defendant’s tract not sold, until such time as public water should be laid and installed in an adjoining public street or highway. The conveyance to' complainant was by an ordinary warranty deed with no recital of easements or appurtenances. A demurrer was filed to complainant’s bill, the demurrer was sustained and on complainant electing to stand by her bill the bill was dismissed for want of equity. To reverse the decree, complainant appeals.

Shepard, McCormick & Thomasson, John D. Pope, and Perry S. Patterson, for appellant.

E. L. Clarke, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

Appeal and error, § *155*
      ***
      *—when, suit concerning an easement involves a freehold.*On appeal from a decree dismissing a bill to restrain defendant from interfering with the use of a well and pathway on defendant’s land, where the bill alleged that complainant’s grantor granted such easement until public water should be laid in an adjoining street, *held*that the interest complainant was contending for was an easement for an indefinite time, which may be forever or may be during the life, of the complainant, and therefore a freehold requiring an appeal to be taken to the Supreme Court.

Whitney, P. J., took no part in this decision.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number^

Mr. Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Anna Selinski, Appellee, v. John E. Holland, Appellant.

Gen. No. 18,988.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William E. Dever, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 23, 1914.

Rehearing denied May 7, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Anna Selinski against John E. Holland to recover damages for. personal injuries alleged to have been received by plaintiff in a collision with defendant’s automobile at or near the intersection of Washington boulevard and Kedzie avenue in Chicago. The jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty and assessing plaintiff’s damages at six hundred dollars. From a judgment entered upon the verdict, defendant appeals.

John A. Bloomingston, for appellant.

Vincent G. Gallagher and Ernest Messner, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Automobiles and garages, § *3*
      ***
      *—when finding as to*con-*tributary negligence of pedestrian not sustained by the evidence.*In an action for injuries received by plaintiff in a collision with defendant’s automobile at a street intersection, *held*that a finding of the jury that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the trial court erred in not granting defendant a new trial.

2. Appeal and error, § *1810*
      ***
      *—when Appellate Court will not reverse with a finding of facts.*Appellate Court will not reverse a judgment with a finding of facts where it is not clear to the *113court that there can he no recovery in the case which it would permit to stand, and it could not say a recovery would he merely a perversion of justice.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

*112Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.
CERTIFICATION OF
          CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Capital
Ventures Group I Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, I, Peter
Goldstein, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Capital
Ventures Group I Inc. hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March
          31, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended March 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Capital
          Ventures Group I Inc.

Dated:  May 14, 2004

Capital Ventures Group I Inc.


By: /s/ Peter Goldstein
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 7, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-1099

Lower Tribunal No. 11-4024

________________

Miami-Dade County,

Petitioner,

vs.

Adrian King,

Respondent.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gill S.

Freeman, Judge.

R.A. Cuevas, Jr., Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Eric Rodriguez and

William X. Candela, Assistant County Attorneys, for petitioner.

David H. Charlip, for respondent.

Before SUAREZ, C.J., and EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration, we conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction, and

dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari. See Lowenstein, Inc. v. Draheim, 898

So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (dismissing appeal of order vacating arbitration

award as one taken from a nonfinal, nonappealable order, and noting that certiorari

jurisdiction is not appropriate because Lowenstein had not suffered irreparable

harm that could not be remedied on direct appeal); Zabawa v. Penna, 868 So. 2d

1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (dismissing petition for writ of certiorari from order

vacating arbitration award because petitioner could not show irreparable harm

irremediable on direct appeal). Contra Felger v. Mock, 65 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2011) (granting certiorari review of order vacating arbitration award,

analogizing said order to one granting a motion for new trial). But see Heart

Surgery Center v. Bixler, 128 So. 3d 169, 173 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (the panel

acknowledged that Felger is the controlling authority within the First District and

authorized certiorari review of an order vacating an arbitration award, but observed

that “for the reasons explained in Judge Benton’s dissent in Felger [65 So. 3d at

626], we believe that Felger is wrongly decided on such issue. . . . Here, in our

view, any harm caused by the order under review can be remedied on direct appeal

of a final order in this case.”)

2
§ 831.2011 Effect of part 772 of this chapter on CSRS lump-sum payments. ( a ) An interim appointment under § 772.102 of this chapter does not affect the lump-sum payment of retirement contributions made to a separated employee unless it becomes effective within 31 days of the employee's separation from the service. An interim appointment effective within 31 days of the employee's separation makes the employee ineligible for the lump-sum payment. Payments made in error will be collected under subpart M of part 831 of this chapter.
( b ) When an employee's separation is cancelled after the MSPB initial decision becomes final, when the Board issues a final order cancelling the employee's separation, or when the agency and the employee agree to cancel the separation, the agency must notify OPM and request the amount of the erroneous lump-sum payment.
( c ) At the time the employee's separation is cancelled, the agency must deduct the amount of the lump-sum payment from any back pay to which the employee is entitled as required by 5 CFR 550.805(e).
( d ) Amounts recovered from back pay will not be subject to waiver consideration under 5 U.S.C. 8346(b). If there is no back pay or the back pay is insufficient to recover the erroneous payment, the employee may request that OPM waive the recovery of the uncollected portion of the overpayment. If waiver is not granted, the employee must repay the erroneous payment.
[57 FR 3713, Jan. 31, 1992]
**CL** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0 586 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JACOB CHRISTIAN PALMER ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 3 0 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including July 2 7 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 12 2023

06/12/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0586
### §2112. Care and maintenance of Surrender Tree site

The American Battle Monuments Commission is responsible for the care and maintenance of the Surrender Tree site in Santiago, Cuba.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1276.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2112 | 36:123 note. | Aug. 13, 1957, Pub. L. 85–125, 71 Stat. 344. |

Section

The last sentence of the Act of August 13, 1957 (Public Law 85–125, 71 Stat. 344), is omitted as obsolete.
---

---

Exhibit 15.1

Brightman Almagor &
Co.

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated March 19, 2008 included in the Annual
Report on Form 20-F of Nova Measuring Instruments Ltd. (the Company)
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 into the Registration Statements on Form S-8
of the Company, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the following dates:
September 13, 2000 (File No. 333-12546); March 5, 2002 (File No. 333-83734); December 24,
2002 (File No. 333-102193); March 24, 2003 (File No. 333-103981); May 17, 2004 (three
files; File Nos. 333-115554, 333-115555, and 333-115556); March 7, 2005 (File No.
333-123158); December 29, 2005 (File No. 333-130745); January 5, 2006 (two files, File
Nos. 333-102193 and 333-115556); September 21, 2006 (File No. 333-137491) and November 5,
2007 (File No. 333-147140) and into the Registration Statement on Form F-3 of the Company,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2007 (File No. 333-142834).

/s/ Brightman Almagor
& Co.Brightman Almagor &
Co.

Certified Public
Accountants

A member of Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel

April 8, 2008



---

---
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

05/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.56 N 76.20 W Meters AGL
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Repros Therapeutics Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Katherine A.
Anderson, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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.





Dated:  August
      9, 2010
              By: /s/ Katherine A.
    AndersonKatherine
      A. AndersonChief
      Accounting OfficerRepros
      Therapeutics Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Repros and will be retained by Repros and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-23179-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN

MOUNTECH IP LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HMD AMERICA, INC., 

Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Mountech IP LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant HMD America, Inc.

(“HMD”) desire to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for relief without prejudice against HMD asserted in

this case.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff and HMD, through their 

attorneys of record, hereby stipulate to dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for relief against HMD 

without prejudice, and with all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses borne by the party 

incurring same

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

Dated: December 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA

/s/ Howard L. Wernow

Howard L. Wernow B.C.S. 

Florida Bar No. 107560

Aegis Tower – Suite 1100

4940 Munson Street NW 

Canton, OH 44718 

Phone: 330-244-1174 

Fax: 330-244-1173 

Email: howard.wernow@sswip.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

/s/ Joseph W. Bain

JOSEPH W. BAIN, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No. 860360 

Email Address: jbain@shutts.com 

SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 

1100 CityPlace Tower 

525 Okeechobee Boulevard 

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 

Telephone: (561) 835-8500 

Facsimile: (561) 650-8530

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 21st day of December 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of court by using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send e-mail 

notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

/s/ Howard L. Wernow 

Howard L. Wernow

Case 1:20-cv-23179-MGC Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2020 Page 2 of 2
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc. (“AMCA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc., Arlington Heights, IL. The nature and scope of AMCA's standards development activities are: Methods of testing for fans, air louvers, dampers and airflow measurement stations for various aspects of performance. These are: Fans for airflow, pressure, power and sound; louvers for pressure drop and water penetration; dampers for pressure drop and air leakage; and airflow measurement stations for accuracy of measurement.

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-25072  Filed 11-9-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Hollander, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Martin, P. J., taking no part.
#### Albert C. Welch, Appellant, v. Lawrence Minning et al., Respondents.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except McCurn, P. J., and Piper, J., who dissent and vote for reversal and denial of the motion, in the following memorandum: We think the moving affidavit is defective and that the order should be reversed and the motion denied with leave to renew on proper papers. The affiant should state that he has interviewed the witnesses, or that he has read their affidavits or statements to show the source of his knowledge; if he cannot so state, the moving papers should include the affidavit of the person or persons who interviewed the witnesses, in support of the main affidavit. Here the allegation in the affidavit as to the source of deponent’s knowledge *“*are statements of witnesses whom deponent has caused to be interviewed and the results of investigation, which deponent has caused to be made” with no showing that he has read any such statements or any report made by the investigator. (Appeal from an order granting a motion for change of place of trial from Genesee County to Madison County.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.
#### Samuel Slote, as Executor of Mary E. McNulty, Deceased, v. Arthur P. McNulty.

Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See 277 App. Div. 978.]
§ 838.731 Commencing date of payments. ( a ) A former spouse survivor annuity based on a court order acceptable for processing begins to accrue in accordance with the terms of the court order but no earlier than the later of— ( 1 ) The first day after the date of death of the employee, separated employee, or retiree; or
( 2 ) The first day of the second month after OPM receives a copy of the court order acceptable for processing.
( b ) OPM will not authorize payment of the former spouse survivor annuity until it receives an application and supporting documentation required under § 838.721.