alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2020210EN.01003001.xml

| 2.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 210/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 210/30

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 63/2019

of 29 March 2019

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2020/817]

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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1076 of 30 July 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 to classify the substance isoflurane as regards its maximum residue limit (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1076 of 30 July 2018 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 to classify the substance isoflurane as regards its maximum residue limit (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 13 (Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32018 R 1076: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1076 of 30 July 2018 (OJ L 194, 31.7.2018, p. 41).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32018 R 1076: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1076 of 30 July 2018 (OJ L 194, 31.7.2018, p. 41).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1076 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 March 2019, 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 March 2019.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Claude MAERTEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 194, 31.7.2018, p. 41.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### Harold R. Pfeiffer, Respondent, v. Transport Leasing, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in Columbia County on March 20, 1952, based upon a jury verdict of $30,000 in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. The action is in negligence and involved a head-on collision between plaintiff’s automobile and a tractor-trailer owned by the corporate defendants and operated by the individual defendant, on a two-strip, straight and level concrete highway about seven o’clock on a very foggy morning. The only eye witnesses were the plaintiff and the defendant Lippert, operator of the tractor-trailer. Confronted with two versions of the cause of the collision, the jury has accepted the plaintiff’s version. There is evidence from which the jury could have found that the heavily loaded vehicle of the defendants was proceeding in a heavy fog with only “marker” lights lighted, at a rate of speed of thirty to thirty-five miles per hour, and partially on the wrong side of the road. Plaintiff was proceeding in a westerly direction and the defendants’ vehicle was proceeding in an easterly direction. Following the accident both vehicles came to rest off the north side of the road. The defendants lean heavily upon photographs which show tire marks allegedly made by the defendants’ vehicle which were off the pavement on the south side of the road. However, it appears that plaintiff’s ear was dragged a considerable distance locked underneath a portion of defendants’ vehicle. There is ample evidence from which the jury could have found that the tracks in question were made after the collision. A clear question of fact as to negligence and contributory negligence is presented by the evidence. Defendants also contend that the verdict of $30,000 is excessive. Plaintiff suffered special damages amounting to approximately $7,000. His injuries were serious and extensive and necessitated lengthy hospitalization and operative care, leaving him with substantial permanent disability. The jury’s evaluation of his damages was not excessive. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.
#### READING, Administrator, Appellant, v. HUTTON, Respondent.

(171 N. W. 319).

(File No. 4420.

Opinion filed March 29, 1919.)

Appeals — Negligence—Death from. Personal Injury — Conflicting Evidence, Sufficiency.

Where, in a suit for personal injury causing death of plaintiff’s child by defendant’s automobile, the only question on appeal is whether evidence justified verdict, held, there being much conflict in the evidence, and that submitted by defendant, if believed by jury, being sufficient to sustain verdict, judgment will be .affirmed.

Appeal from 'Circuit Court, Moody County. Hon. Joseph W. Jones, Judge.

Action by Earl A. Reading, as administrator of the Estate of *500Frank E. Reading, deceased, against Arthur Hutton, to recover damages for personal injuries causing the death of plaintiff's child. From a judgment for defendant, and from' an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Aikens & Judge,*for Appellant.

*Ira F. Blewitt,*for Respondent.

McCOY, J.

Action for personal injury causing the death’ of Frank E. Reading, a child' of the age of about 4 years, son of appellant, which injury was alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant in operating and running his automobile upon and over said child. There was verdict and judgment in -favor of defendant, and- plaintiff appeals.

The only question raised by this appeal is whether or not the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict. There was much conflict in the evidence, and it will serve no useful purpose to recite the same in this opinion. That was purely a question of fact, to be decided by the jury. We are of the opinion that 'the evidence submitted on the part of defendant, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2393

To provide that unremarried former spouses of retired and career members 

of the Armed Forces shall be entitled to military health care and commissary and exchange benefits if married for at least 10 years during 

the member’s military service and if the former spouse left the marriage 

due to domestic violence or unbearable conditions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2003

Mr. FILNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To provide that unremarried former spouses of retired and 

career members of the Armed Forces shall be entitled 

to military health care and commissary and exchange 

benefits if married for at least 10 years during the 

member’s military service and if the former spouse left 

the marriage due to domestic violence or unbearable conditions.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Continued Benefits 

5 for Injured Military Spouses Act’’. 
2

•HR 2393 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN UNREMARRIED FORMER 

2 MILITARY SPOUSES FOR MILITARY HEALTH 

3 CARE AND AND COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE 

4 BENEFITS. 

5 (a) ELIGIBILITY.—A person described in subsection 

6 (b) shall be deemed for all purposes to be described in 

7 subparagraph (F)(i) of section 1072(2) of title 10, United 

8 States Code. 

9 (b) PERSONS COVERED.—Subsection (a) applies to a 

10 person who—

11 (1) is the unremarried former spouse of a mem12 ber of the uniformed services who performed at least 

13 20 years of service which is creditable in deter14 mining the member’s eligibility for retired pay and 

15 on the date of the final decree of divorce, dissolu16 tion, or annulment had been married to the member 

17 for a period of at least 20 years, of which at least 

18 10 years were during the period the member per19 formed service creditable in determining the mem20 ber’s eligibility for retired pay; and 

21 (2) sought a divorce, dissolution, or annulment 

22 from the member of the uniformed services due, in 

23 whole or in part, to (A) domestic violence involving 

24 that person or a child of that person that is substan25 tiated by counseling or medical records, or (B) other 
3

•HR 2393 IH 

1 circumstances that (as determined by the Secretary 

2 concerned) constitute unbearable conditions. 

3 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 (1) The term ‘‘retired pay’’ includes retainer 

5 pay or equivalent pay. 

6 (2) The term ‘‘member’’ includes a former 

7 member entitled to retired pay or who would be enti8 tled to that pay but for being under age 60.

Æ
# L_2018215EN.01005301.xml

| 23.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 215/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 215/53

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 255/2016

of 2 December 2016

amending Protocol 47 (on the abolition of technical barriers to trade in wine) to the EEA Agreement [2018/1191]

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 Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/765 of 11 March 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 as regards certain oenological practices (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/765 of 11 March 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 as regards certain oenological practices (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | This Decision concerns legislation regarding wine. Legislation regarding wine 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 seventh paragraph of the introduction to Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement. This Decision is therefore not to apply to Liechtenstein. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

This Decision concerns legislation regarding wine. Legislation regarding wine 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 seventh paragraph of the introduction to Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement. This Decision is therefore not to apply to Liechtenstein.

| (3) | Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 10 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 606/2009) of Appendix 1 of Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32016 R 0765: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/765 of 11 March 2016 (OJ L 127, 18.5.2016, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32016 R 0765: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/765 of 11 March 2016 (OJ L 127, 18.5.2016, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/765 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 3 December 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, 2 December 2016.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Bergdís ELLERTSDÓTTIR

---

(1)  
  OJ L 127, 18.5.2016, p. 1.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Chief Executive Officer Certification**

I, Paul T. Wood, Chief Executive Officer and Presidentof Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:

(a)          designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

(b)         evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report on such evaluation; and

(c)          disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)          all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)         any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting;
| Date: August 11, 2006 | /s/ Paul T. Wood                   |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------|
|                  | Paul T. Wood                       |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer, President |

 

----
### §903. Designation of Medal of Honor Flag

(a) Designation.—The Secretary of Defense shall design and designate a flag as the Medal of Honor Flag. In selecting the design for the flag, the Secretary shall consider designs submitted by the general public.

(b) Presentation.—The Medal of Honor Flag shall be presented as specified in sections 7285, 8307, and 9285 of title 10 and section 505 1 of title 14.

(Added Pub. L. 107–248, title VIII, §8143(b)(1), Oct. 23, 2002, 116 Stat. 1570; amended Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §809(l)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1843.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 505 of title 14, referred to in subsec. (b), was redesignated section 2734 of title 14 by Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §116(b)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4226, and references to section 505 of title 14 deemed to refer to such redesignated section, see section 123(b)(1) of Pub. L. 115–282, set out as a References to Sections of Title 14 as Redesignated by Pub. L. 115–282 note preceding section 101 of Title 14, Coast Guard.

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–232 substituted "sections 7285, 8307, and 9285 of title 10" for "sections 3755, 6257, and 8755 of title 10".

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of Title 10, Armed Forces.

#### Findings

Pub. L. 107–248, title VIII, §8143(a), Oct. 23, 2002, 116 Stat. 1570, provided that: "Congress finds that—

"(1) the Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Forces of the United States;

"(2) the Medal of Honor was established by Congress during the Civil War to recognize soldiers who had distinguished themselves by gallantry in action;

"(3) the Medal of Honor was conceived by Senator James Grimes of the State of Iowa in 1861; and

"(4) the Medal of Honor is the Nation's highest military honor, awarded for acts of personal bravery or self-sacrifice above and beyond the call of duty."

#### Presentation of Medal of Honor Flag

Pub. L. 107–248, title VIII, §8143(d), Oct. 23, 2002, 116 Stat. 1571, required the President to provide for the expeditious presentation of the Medal of Honor Flag designated under this section to each person awarded the Medal of Honor before Oct. 23, 2002, who was living as of that date.

1 See References in Text note below.
# L_2020013EN.01001101.xml

| 17.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 13/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 13/11

---

Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on certain aspects of air services

The Agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on certain aspects of air services, signed in Kyiv on 1 December 2005, entered into force on 13 October 2006, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 13 October 2006.

---
#### Rebecca H. Simons v. Gilbert P. Simons.

Present — Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [See 278 App. Div. 902.]
#### C. L. Roberts, Appellant, v. Estate of Henry L. Roberts, Appellee.

Gen. No. 5,903.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. Richard S. Farrand, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 15, 1914.

*315Statement of the Case.

Suit on a claim filed by C. L. Roberts against the estate of his father, Henry L. Roberts, deceased, for a balance due on an open account. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of the estate, claimant appeals.

This case has been once before in the Appellate Court on an appeal by the estate from a judgment in favor of the claimant, which judgment was reversed and the case remanded in 175 Ill. App. 109.

C. F. Preston, for appellant.

Trusdell, Smith & Leech, for appellee; Adam C. Cliffe, of counsel.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Executors and administrators, § *305*
      ***
      *—questions for jury.*In a suit on a .claim filed against an estate for a balance due on an open account, *held*the question whether a certain written memorandum on which the claimant relies in support of his claim was of any probative force was for the jury.

2. Witnesses, § *41*
      ***
      *—when husband of heir competent witness.*On trial of a claim filed against the estate of claimant’s father, *held*that the husband of an heir who was defending the estate was a competent witness to testify to a conversation with the claimant occurring after the father’s death, for the reason that husband may testify in suits concerning the separate property of his wife.

3. Appeal and error, § *1491*
      ***
      *—when rejection of evidence not material error.*In an action on a claim filed against the estate of claimant’s father, rejection of the inventory of the estate offered in evidence by the claimant for the purpose of showing what stock and produce there was on the farm at the time of his father’s death, *held*not material error for the reason that it had little bearing on the real issue.

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

Mr. Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Klamath National Forest is withdrawing the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Crawford Vegetation Management Project. The original NOI was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on January 27, 2014 (79 FR 4323). Upon further evaluation, there are no expected significant impacts to the human environment associated with the project. As a result, the Klamath National Forest is now preparing an environmental assessment (EA). All comments previously received regarding this project will be retained and considered in the development of the EA. If it is determined that the project may have significant impacts, the EIS process will be reinitiated and a NOI will be published.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Questions concerning this notice and requests to be added to the project mailing list should be directed to Lisa Bousfield, Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District, 63822 State Highway 96, P.O. Box 377, Happy Camp, CA 96039; by telephone at (530) 493-1766; or via email at                         *lbousfield@fs.fed.us.*

                        Individuals who have previously submitted comments on this project will                               ( print page 66675)                            remain on the project mailing list and do not need to contact the Forest.                    

Dated: December 4, 2018.

Jennifer Eberlien,

Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.

[FR Doc. 2018-27970 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3411-15-P