alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023275EN.01001701.xml

| 4.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/17

---

Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 and Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

(2023/C 275/06)

The following information is brought to the attention of PAK Jae-gyong (no. 4), KIM Yong Chol (no. 7), HONG Sung-Mu (no. 10), JO Kyongchol (no. 11), PAK Jong-chon (no. 17), Kim Su Gil (no. 28), JON Il Ho (no. 29), YU Jin (no. 31), Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Centre (no. 4), persons and entity appearing in section I of Annex II to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 (1) and in Annex XV to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 (2), as well as KIM Chang Hyok a.k.a.: James Kim (no. 8), RYANG Su Nyo (no. 10), PYON Won Gun (no. 11), PAE Won Chol (no. 12), RI Sin Song (no. 13), KIM Sung Su (no. 14), KIM Pyong Chol (no. 15), O Yong Ho (no. 31), Pan Systems Pyongyang a.k.a. Wonbang Trading Co.; Glocom; International Golden Services; International Global System (no. 4), Eritech Computer Assembly & Communication Technology PLC (no. 5), Korea General Corporation for External Construction (Aliases: KOGEN, GENCO) (no. 6), persons and entities appearing in Annex III to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 and in Annex XVI to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509.

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons and entities with new statements of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statements of reasons for their designation, before 11 August 2023, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

---

(1)  OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 79.

(2)  OJ L 224, 31.8.2017, p. 1.

---
§ 57.3203 Rock fixtures. ( a ) For rock bolts and accessories addressed in ASTM F432-95, “Standard Specification for Roof and Rock Bolts and Accessories,” the mine operator shall— ( 1 ) Obtain a manufacturer's certification that the material was manufactured and tested in accordance with the specifications of ASTM F432-95; and
( 2 ) Make this certification available to an authorized representative of the Secretary and to the representative of miners.
( b ) Fixtures and accessories not addressed in ASTM F432-95 may be used for ground support provided they— ( 1 ) Have been successful in supporting the ground in an area with similar strata, opening dimensions and ground stresses in any mine; or
( 2 ) Have been tested and shown to be effective in supporting ground in an area of the affected mine which has similar strata, opening dimensions, and ground stresses as the area where the fixtures are expected to be used. During the test process, access to the test area shall be limited to persons necessary to conduct the test.
( c ) Bearing plates shall be used with fixtures when necessary for effective ground support.
( d ) The diameter of finishing bits shall be within a tolerance of plus or minus 0.030 inch of the manufacturer's recommended hole diameter for the anchor used. When separate finishing bits are used, they shall be distinguishable from other bits.
( e ) Damaged or deteriorated cartridges of grouting material shall not be used.
( f ) When rock bolts tensioned by torquing are used as a means of ground support, ( 1 ) Selected tension level shall be— ( i ) At least 50 percent of either the yield point of the bolt or anchorage capacity of the rock, whichever is less; and
( ii ) No greater than the yield point of the bolt or anchorage capacity of the rock.
( 2 ) The torque of the first bolt, every tenth bolt, and the last bolt installed in each work area during the shift shall be accurately determined immediately after installation. If the torque of any fixture tested does not fall within the installation torque range, corrective action shall be taken.
( g ) When grouted fixtures can be tested by applying torque, the first fixture installed in each work place shall be tested to withstand 150 foot-pounds of torque. Should it rotate in the hole, a second fixture shall be tested in the same manner. If the second fixture also turns, corrective action shall be taken.
( h ) When other tensioned and nontensioned fixtures are used, test methods shall be established and used to verify their effectiveness.
( i ) The mine operator shall certify that tests were conducted and make the certification available to an authorized representative of the Secretary.
[51 FR 36198, Oct. 8, 1986, as amended at 51 FR 36804, Oct. 16, 1986; 63 FR 20030, Apr. 22, 1998]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1206

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

#### § 1206.363 When is an ONRR audit, review, reconciliation, monitoring, or other like process considered final?

Notwithstanding any provision in these regulations to the contrary, no audit, review, reconciliation, monitoring, or other like process that results in a redetermination by ONRR of royalty or fees due under this subpart is considered final or binding as against the Federal Government or its beneficiaries until ONRR formally closes the audit period in writing.
§ 736.14 Director's decision. ( a ) After considering all relevant information received under § 736.12 of this part, the Director shall decide whether to promulgate or revise a Federal program for the State.
( b ) The Director shall publish the decision in the Federal Register, including a statement of the basis and purpose for the decision, the regulations of the Federal program for the State or revision thereof, and the effective date of the program or revision.
[44 FR 15329, Mar. 13, 1979, as amended at 52 FR 39408, Oct. 21, 1987]
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 15-14






DTE Energy Company and
The Detroit Edison Company
Detroit, Michigan

We have made a review,  in accordance with standards established by the
American  Institute of Certified Public   Accountants, of the unaudited interim
financial  information of DTE Energy Company and subsidiaries and of  The
Detroit Edison Company and subsidiaries for the  periods  ended June 30, 2000
and 1999,  as indicated in our report dated August 9, 2000.  Because we did
not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that  information.


We are aware that our report referred to above, which is  included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter ended June 30, 2000, is
incorporated by reference in the following Registration Statements:

         Form                      Registration Number

         DTE Energy Company
         Form S-3                    33-57545
         Form S-8                   333-00023
         Form S-4                   333-89175

         The Detroit Edison Company
         Form S-3                   33-53207
         Form S-3                   33-64296
         Form S-3                  333-65765

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not  considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared  or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant  within the meaning of Sections  7 and 11 of that
Act.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Detroit, Michigan
August 9, 2000
Appeal No. 75-160.

#### Donato L. Perriello *v.*Thomas Del Vecchio.

*William A. Poore,*for plaintiff.

*John G. Carroll,*for defendant.

The plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to June 15, 1977 to file his brief is granted.
TS- CCGL81

Attachment #5

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 2

Worker/ Occupational Exposure Information on the New Chemical Substance s at

Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter
§ 583.330 How will BOEM enforce the agreement? ( a ) Failure to comply with any applicable law or any provision, term, or condition of the agreement may result in the termination of the agreement, a referral to an appropriate Federal or State agency for enforcement, or both. Termination of the agreement for noncompliance will be in the sole discretion of the Director.
( b ) The failure to comply in a timely and satisfactory manner with any provision, term or condition of the agreement may delay or prevent BOEM's approval of future requests for use of OCS sand, gravel, and/or shell resources on the part of the parties to the agreement.
#### Paul Kern et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company et al., Respondents. Massachusetts Mutual Life *557Insurance Company, Defendant and Interpleading Plaintiff, v. Katherine K. Derdelinghen et al., Claimants and Interpleaded Defendants.

In an action to declare an oral express trust in favor of all the children of one Charles Kern, deceased, with respect to the proceeds of certain life insurance policies which designated the defendant Katherine Hoffman, nee Kern, as the beneficiary thereof, plaintiffs Paul Kern and Henry Kern appeal: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 11, 1961, which granted the said Katherine Hoffman’s motion for summary judgment; (2) from an order, dated Elay 9, 1961, which denied reargument of said motion; and (3) from the judgment entered thereon May 11, 1961. Order of April 11, 1961, modified: (a) by striking out all its decretal paragraphs except the fourth (which dismissed the complaint as against the defendant Eletropolitan Life Insurance Company); and (b) by adding a paragraph denying the motion for summary judgment. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs Kern against defendant Katherine Hoffman. Appeal from order of May 9, 1961, dismissed, without costs; an order denying reargument is not appealable. Judgment, entered May 11, 1961, vacated, without costs. The action to declare the oral express trust is maintainable and the Statute of Frauds is not a defense thereto *(Blanco*v. *Velez,*295 N. Y. 224). Plaintiff Paul Kern is not barred by section 347 of the Civil Practice Act from testifying to the facts concerning the creation of such trust *(Ward*v. *New York Life Ins. Co.,*225 N. Y. 314). The issue of credibility as between plaintiffs and the named beneficiary of the policy issued by the defendant Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company must be determined upon a trial. Since that company has taken no appeal, its application to deposit the insurance proceeds in court may not presently be determined. Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00033-CR

Jose Luis ALONZO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1992-CR-2181

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2008

AFFIRMED

Jose Luis Alonzo pled guilty to capital murder pursuant to a plea bargain agreement and was

sentenced to life imprisonment. Alonzo appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for postconviction DNA testing. Alonzo’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel

concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Alonzo with a copy of the brief and

informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954
04-08-00033-CR

-2-

S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Alonzo did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw

is granted. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel

will be appointed. Should Alonzo wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals, Alonzo must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review

or Alonzo must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review

must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for

rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX.R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary

review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals. See TEX.R. APP. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with

the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.R. APP. P. 68.4.

Alma L. López, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis
J. Allingham, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company.


By        /s/ DENNIS J. ALLINGHAM
  -------------------------------------------
Dennis J. Allingham
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
February 7, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9751 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9751

   To include certain executive and judicial actions in the baseline 
calculation by the Congressional Budget Office, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2024

  Mr. Estes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To include certain executive and judicial actions in the baseline 
calculation by the Congressional Budget Office, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Executive Action Cost Transparency 
Act''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVING BASELINE DATA BY INCLUDING EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL 
              ACTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 907) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``(f) Executive and Judicial Actions.--To the extent practicable, 
any calculation of the baseline and any update shall include any 
judicial action and any executive action (including any proposed rule, 
final rule, executive order, or memorandum) consistent with the 
scorekeeping guidelines determined under section 252(d)(5).''.
    (b) Separate Table in Report.--Section 202(e)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 602) is amended by adding at 
the end the following: ``To the extent practicable, the report and any 
update to the report shall include a table of any judicial action and 
any executive action described in section 257(f) of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 that was issued on or after 
the last publication of the report or the most recent update to the 
report (as the case may be) if the Director estimates the judicial 
action or the executive action has budgetary effects of at least 
$50,000,000,000 during the current year, budget year, and the nine 
years following the budget year. Any proposed executive action shall be 
assumed to be final for purposes of determining whether to include the 
proposed action in the table and shall only be included consistent with 
the scorekeeping guidelines determined under section 252(d)(5) of such 
Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
07/07/2014 10:28 8472947498 FAA GLRC



## U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office ofHearings Washington, D.C. 

# Regent Aerospace Corpo.-ation FAADOCKET NO. CP*not yet assigned* EIR

### 2011-GL-ll-0026

Civil Penalty Action Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin



## MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND PAGE 02/04

There is currently pending a Motion. for Summary Judgment in the matter captioned above filed by the Respondent. The time forthe Agency to respond has not yet run. However, the Agency Attorney assigned to this matterunderwent a medical procedure late last week which included an injection into his left knee. The Agency Attorney has suffered a severe reaction to the injection and is currently tumble to walk without assistance. Itis beLieved that this reaction will subside
over the nextthree or four days and he can return to work.
Therefore, the Agency Attorney, Chris G Zuralcs, docs hereby request that thetime allowed to respo1Jd to the Respondent's Motion for SummaryJudgment be extended to Thursday, July 17, 2014. The Agency Attorney has discussed this request with counsel for the Respondent, and Mr. Clementhas indicated they have no objection to granting this extension oftime.07/07/2014 10:28 8472947498 FAA GLRC



### Respectfully submitted this 7'" day 

### ofJuly 2014.

BrianKhan for, Chris G. Zura)es, Agency Attorney Senior Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Great Lakes 

### Region, AGL-7K 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, JL 60018 Phone: (847) 294-7713 

### Fax: (847) 294-7498 

### Email: chris.g.zurales@faa.gov PAGE 03/04


### 207/07/2014 10:28 8472947498 FAA GLRC



## Certificate of Service 2011-GL-11-0026 PAGE 04/04 

### 3

I hereby certify that the forer,oing Motion To Extend Time to Respond, has been mai.led by First Class Mail and Faxed

### this 7''day ofJuly 2014, to: Originai and One Copy: Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilber Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 FAX: 202-493-5142 One Copyto each: The Honorable Richard C Goodwin Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590 Telephone (StaffAssistant): 202-366-5121 FAX: 202-366-7536 Mr. John Scott Hoff Jeffrey F Clement HoffLaw Group 135 S LaSalle St, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: Fax: (312) 346"8111 (312) 853-3924
Dated this 7th day ofJuly 2014.

# ~~J)i~ru_J (}'::;?:§a1!_

# a~ta**·~** FAA Great J,akes Region
#### The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Robert Wildes, Respondent, v New York State Board of Parole et al., Appellants.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 15, 1977, which, *inter alia,*directed that petitioner be restored to parole. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, proceeding dismissed, and petitioner is directed to surrender himself to the Warden of the Green Haven Correctional Facility. Contrary to Special Term’s determination, we hold that (1) the hearing officer properly determined, before deciding not to await the presence of counsel at the preliminary parole revocation hearing, that petitioner adequately understood the charges against him and was sufficiently articulate to explain his conduct and (2) the reasons for the decision to proceed without counsel were adequately set forth in the record. In addition, the record does not indicate that any facts which could have been presented in mitigation of the violations were too difficult or complex for petitioner to develop without the aid of counsel. Certainly, at that stage in the proceeding, it was not an abuse of discretion to find that counsel would not have had an impact on the determination that petitioner be held for a final revocation hearing (see *Gagnon v Scarpelli,*411 US 778, 790-791; *People ex rel. Calloway v Skinner,*33 NY2d 23). Latham, J. P., Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur; O’Connor, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment, with the following memorandum: In the light of petitioner’s representations that there were substantial reasons which mitigated against his technical violations, that revocation would have been inappropriate in view of those reasons and that, without the aid of counsel, he could not adequately develop the difficult circumstances for the hearing officer, it was an abuse of discretion to deny his request to await counsel.
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.1403-1 General criteria. ( a ) Sections 75.1403-2 through 75.1403-11 set out the criteria by which an authorized representative of the Secretary will be guided in requiring other safeguards on a mine-by-mine basis under § 75.1403. Other safeguards may be required.
( b ) The authorized representative of the Secretary shall in writing advise the operator of a specific safeguard which is required pursuant to § 75.1403 and shall fix a time in which the operator shall provide and thereafter maintain such safeguard. If the safeguard is not provided within the time fixed and if it is not maintained thereafter, a notice shall be issued to the operator pursuant to section 104 of the Act.
( c ) Nothing in the sections in the § 75.1403 series in this Subpart O precludes the issuance of a withdrawal order because of imminent danger.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.518-1 Electric equipment and circuits; overload and short circuit protection; minimum requirements.

A device to provide either short circuit protection or protection against overload which does not conform to the provisions of the National Electric Code, 1968, does not meet the requirement of § 75.518. In addition, such devices on electric face equipment and trailing cables that are required to be permissible must meet the requirements of the applicable schedules of the Bureau of Mines.