alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023101EN.01004901.xml

| 17.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/49

---

Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA’s) mission

(2023/C 101/06)

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority's ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’

The list was first drawn up by EFSA’s Management Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:

| i. | updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)), and |
| --- | --- |

i.

updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)), and

| ii. | made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published.

This respective information is available on the EFSA website, at the following locations:

| i. | the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 7 March 2023 – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg. |
| --- | --- |

i.

the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 7 March 2023 – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg.

EFSA will keep this Notice updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.

For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s mission, OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64, as last amended.

---
#### Jean Pakter, Also Known as Jean Bachman, et al., Respondents, v. Eli Lilly and Company, Appellant.

Resettled order entered March 22, 1963, granting in part plaintiffs’ motion to modify defendant’s demand for a bill of particulars and denying defendant’s cross motion to vacate plaintiffs’ notice of eaxmination before trial of defendant, modified, on the law and on the facts, by providing that the examination shall be in Indianapolis, Indiana, and, at the election of the plaintiffs, shall be by written interrogatories or open commission. *(Bodenstadt*v. *Parke, Davis & Co.,*1 A D 2d 670.) If plaintiffs elect the latter, the parties shall pay their respective expenses which may be taxed as costs by the party prevailing. The order is further modified by granting defendant’s cross motion for priority of examination of plaintiffs, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. It was an unwise exercise of discretion to require defendant to pay the expenses of the examination. In the circumstances, defendant’s notice therefor having been first served, its examination of plaintiffs should precede the examination of defendant. *(Punia*v. *Dry Dock Sav. Bank,*280 App. Div. 431.) On priority of depositions generally, see rule 3106 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Concur — Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.; Breitel, J. P., dissents in the following memorandum: The modification is an unwarranted interference with the exercise of discretion by Special Term, especially as to the matter of priority of examinations. Moreover, it is judicially uneconomic to make appellate readjustment in the procedural arrangements of a ease unless there has been an abuse of discretion resulting in substantial injustice. Accordingly, the order should be affirmed. Settle order on notice.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00208

- CV

Richard PAMPLIN and Networth Cashflow Systems, LLC,

Appellants

v.

Kelly STEPHENSON , Trustee of The Coffee Time, Inc. 401(k) (PSP) and

Craig Noack, Court

- Appointed Turnover Receiver,

Appellees

From the 438th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CI05138

Honorable Aaron Haas , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opi nion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Costs of court for this appeal are taxed against Richard Pamplin and Networth Cashflow Systems,

LLC.

SIGNED March 29, 2023.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### § 553.38 Statutory authorities.

The statutory authorities for this subpart are Public Law 93-43 Stat 87, 10 U.S.C. 985, 1481, 1482, 3013, and 38 U.S.C. 2411.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

REGIONAL AQUIFER-SYSTEM ANALYSIS—
APPALACHIAN VALLEY AND PIEDMONT

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1422-C
Terranes in Virginia and West Virginia—PLATE 4

Hollyday, E:F., and Hileman, G.E., 1997, Hydrogeologic terranes and potential yield of water to wells in the
Wally and Hidge PhySosrante Pradncs nie Easiom and Goutesion od Sats

KENTUCKY ee
——KENTucky

TENNESSER

EXPLANATION LAKE
Physiographic province Rul ERIE

i | Valley and Ridge

@ Piedmont

Bi Blue Ridge and rAL
New England

OHIO

2c] Plate area

200 MILES

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

GULF OF MEXICO :
1

Map showing the Appalachian Valley and Piedmont Regional Aquifer~System Analysis study area,
physiographic provinces, and plate area.

EXPLANATION

Description of hydrogeologic terranes—The sequence
of units is not intended to imply stratigraphic position.
See plate 1 for stratigraphic position among geologic
units in the hydrogeologic terranes

Dolomite—Includes geologic units that are predominantly dolomite,
a combination of dolomite and sandstone or chert, and dolomite and
limestone with as much as 70 percent limestone

Limestone— Includes geologic units that are predominantly limestone
and limestone with less than 30 percent dolomite

Argillaceous carbonate rock—lIncludes geologic units that are
predominantly clay-rich dolomite or limestone, as well as shale units
that contain abundant calcite or magnesium calcite

Siliciclastic rock—Includes geologic units that are predominantly
shale with little or no carbonate content, claystone, siltstone, sandstone,
and conglomerate that consist of clay minerals, quartz grains, or
siliceous rock fragments

Oo OF GH GB

Undesignated— Includes geologic units that are too varied in lithology
to designate a terrane or are units that are commonly associated
with the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province

10 20 30 MILES

o-o

T
30 KILOMETERS

83°

iA

Base from U.S. Geological Survey
DLG data, 1:100,000

PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND

PENNSYLVANIA

WEST VIRGINIA
MARYLAND.

38°

Geologic contacts from Calver and Hobbs (1963), 1:500,000; Cardwell and
others (1968), 1:250,000; digitized by T.O. Mesko, 1990. Lambert Conformal
Conic projection; Standard parallels 33° and 45°; central meridian -81°

‘Sheet prepared and formatted by John S. Harvll and David C. Greene

MAP SHOWING THE LOCATION OF HYDROGEOLOGIC TERRANES IN THE
VALLEY AND RIDGE PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE IN VIRGINIA AND WEST VIRGINIA

By
E.F. Hollyday and G.E. Hileman
1997
# FILED
June 11, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON APRIL 1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) NO. 02C01-9708-CC-00324 Appellee, ) ) GIBSON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. DICK JERMA N, JR., BRUCE COLE, ) JUDGE ) Appellant. ) (Sentencing)

CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION

I concur in all re spects wit h the opinion by my coll eague, Judge David G. Hayes, with exception o f the refusal to allow certain credits. I believe the statutory sche me clearly requires credit for time served in a community corre ctions progr a m even if participation in the program is a conditio n of probation. As noted by

my colleagues, the statute expressly requires credit for time spent in a co mmunity corrections pro gram when a community c orrections sentence i s revoke d. See

T enn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)( 4). My colleagues

then conclude, however, that to allow credit for participation in the community correct ions program when it is a condition o f prob ation would in most cases only encourage the probationer

to intentionally vi olate probation after completion of his Release Eli gibility Date so as to terminate his sentence and all further supervision. I find nothing in our law indicating that a p robation revocation and r einstatement of the original penitentiary sentence terminates th e se ntence just because the offender has surpassed his Release Eligibi lity Date. Obviously, one is not necessarily releas ed,
nor is the sentence terminated, upon reaching a Release Eli gibility Date. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501 et. seq. The determination of release must be made by the Board of Paroles. Moreover, my colleagues sw eepingly conclude that a probationer is not entitled to jail credit. In d oing s o they overlook Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-2

106(e)(3)(B). If an offender is first placed in a c om mun ity corr

ections pro

gram, subsequently transferred to ordinary probation and then violates probation, the court is expressly

required to award c redit for the time served i n the community corrections program upon probation being revoked

. Community

corrections is a special p rogram with stri ct requirements. The legislati ve intent is clear: a person participating the communit y corrections prog ram gets credit for the time serv ed in the program. To allow credit for one participati ng onlyin the community correct ions program and to deny credit for oneparticipating in both community corrections a nd probation does not make a whol e lot of sense tome. It’s just that simple. For these reason s, I respect fully diss ent from the den ial of credit for the time of participa

tion in the c

ommunity cor

rections pr

ogram.

_________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
### §101703. Cooperative management agreements

(a) In General.—To facilitate the administration of the System, the Secretary, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary considers advisable, may enter into an agreement with a State or local government agency to provide for the cooperative management of the Federal and State or local park areas where a System unit is located adjacent to or near a State or local park area, and cooperative management between the Service and a State or local government agency of a portion of either the System unit or State or local park will allow for more effective and efficient management of the System unit and State or local park. The Secretary may not transfer administration responsibilities for any System unit under this paragraph.

(b) Provision of Goods and Services.—Under a cooperative management agreement, the Secretary may acquire from and provide to a State or local government agency goods and services to be used by the Secretary and the State or local governmental agency in the cooperative management of land.

(c) Assignment of Employee.—An assignment arranged by the Secretary under section 3372 of title 5 of a Federal, State, or local employee for work on any Federal, State, or local land or an extension of the assignment may be for any period of time determined by the Secretary and the State or local agency to be mutually beneficial.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3136.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 101703 | 16 U.S.C. 1a–2 (matter before (a)). | Pub. L. 91–383, §3 (matter before (a)), Aug. 18, 1970, 84 Stat. 826. |
| | 16 U.S.C. 1a–2(l). | Pub. L. 91–383, §3(l), as added Pub. L. 105–391, title VIII, §802(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3523. |

Section

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

#### Authorizing Cooperative Management Agreements Between the District of Columbia and the Secretary of the Interior

Pub. L. 116–9, title II, §2403, Mar. 12, 2019, 133 Stat. 747, provided that: "The Secretary [of the Interior] may enter into a cooperative management agreement with the District of Columbia in accordance with section 101703 of title 54, United States Code."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           9,931
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,220
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                16,490
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            18,607
<LOANS>                                         66,314
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,431
<DEPOSITS>                                     101,889
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                446
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,205
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 115,431
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,525
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,229
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   604
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,358
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,106
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,119
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,239
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    (260)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,674
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,547
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,541
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,541
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.50
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,592
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,261
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,750
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,340
<RECOVERIES>                                       317
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,467
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 44.3 Definitions.

For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:

*Extreme community hardship.* A situation that, because of a Reserve member's mobilization, may have a substantially adverse effect on the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Any request for a determination of such hardship will be made by the Reserve member and must be supported by documentation, as required by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned.

*Inactive National Guard (ING).* Members of the National Guard in an inactive status in the Ready Reserve and attached to a specific National Guard unit. These members do not participate in training activities but mobilize with their unit of assignment or with other units within their State on partial or full mobilization. They are not subject to a call-up pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 12304.

*Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).* A manpower pool within the Ready Reserve of each of the RCs consisting of individuals who have had some training or who have served previously in the AC or in the Selected Reserve, and may have some period of their MSO remaining pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 651. The IRR consists of members of the Ready Reserve who are not in the Selected Reserve or the ING. Additionally, the IRR also includes some personnel who are participating in officer training programs or in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Programs.

*Key employee.* Any non-federal employee occupying a key position within an agency, company, local government, or organization.

*Key position.* A public or private civilian position, not a job series, designated by the employer and approved by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned) that cannot be vacated during war or national emergency.

*Mobilization.* The process by which the Armed Forces of the United States, or part of them, are brought to a state of readiness for war or other national emergency.

*Ready Reserve.* The Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve liable for active duty as prescribed by law.

*Selected Reserve.* Those units and individuals within the Ready Reserve designated by their respective Military Service and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as so essential to initial wartime missions that they have priority over all other reserves.
§ 218.2 General procedures. The following procedures govern the approach taken in dose determination: ( a ) Use individual film badge data where available and complete, for determining the external gamma dose.
( b ) Identify group activities and locations for period(s) of possible exposure.
( c ) Qualitatively assess the radiation environment in order to delineate contaminated areas. If no activities occurred in these areas, and if no other potential for exposure exists, a no dose received estimate is made.
( d ) If partial film badge data are available, define group(s) of personnel with common activities and relationships to radiation environment.
( e ) Using standard statistical methods, verify from the distribution of film badge readings whether the badged sample adequately represents the intended group.
( f ) Calculate the mean external gamma dose, with variance and confidence limits, for each unbadged population. Assign a dose equal to 95% probability that actual exposure did not exceed the assigned dose.
( g ) If badge data is not available for a statistical calculation, conduct a dose reconstruction.
( h ) For dose reconstruction, define radiation environment through use of all available scientific data, e.g., measurements of radiation intensity, decay, radioisotopic composition.
( i ) Quantitatively relate activities shielding, position, and other factors to radiation environment as a function of time. Integrate dose throughout period of exposure.
( j ) Where possible, calculate mean dose with confidence limits; otherwise calculate best estimate dose or, if data are too sparse, upper limit dose.
( k ) Compare calculations with available film badge records to verify the calculated doses. Whether or not film badge data is available, calculate initial and internal doses where identified as a meaningful contribution to the total dose.
### §1401. Definitions

In this chapter:

#### (1) Commissioner

The term "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security.

#### (2) Maquiladora

The term "maquiladora" means an entity located in Mexico that assembles and produces goods from imported parts for export to the United States.

#### (3) Northern border

The term "northern border" means the international border between the United States and Canada.

#### (4) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

#### (5) Southern border

The term "southern border" means the international border between the United States and Mexico.

(Pub. L. 110–161, div. E, title VI, §602, Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2094.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 110–161, div. E, title VI, §601, Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2094, provided that: "This title [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act of 2007'."
### SUBCHAPTER III—COTTON POOL PARTICIPATION TRUST CERTIFICATES
Exhibit  15.1

**CONSENT  OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-111310) of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd pertaining to the Employees’ Stock Option Plans of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. of our report dated March 2, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

|                          |   |   |                                                                              |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   |   |                                                                                   |
| Tel-Aviv, IsraelJuly 12, 2005 |   |   | /s/          KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERERA Member of Ernst & Young Global |

 

 

----
#### § 1908.32 Receipt, recording, and tasking.

The Coordinator shall promptly record each appeal received under this part, acknowledge receipt to the requester, and task the originator and other interested parties. Additional taskings, as required during the review process, shall be accomplished within ten (10) days of notification.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00644

- CV

Brett RADCLIFFE , Robert Radcliffe, and Mamba Minerals, LLC, Appellants

v.

TIDAL PETROLEUM, INC.

, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 07

- 00176

- CVL Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we AFFIRM the trial court’s order granting Tidal Petroleum, Inc.’ s motion for summary judgment against the Radcliffes’ claims of bad faith trespass, common law fraud, fraud by nondisclosure, civil conspiracy to defraud, conversion, misapplication of trust funds, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of operator’s duty, theft under the Theft Liability Act, money had and received, and unjust enrichment.

We REVERSE the trial court’s order granting Tidal Petroleum, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment against the Radcliffes’ trespass

- to

- try

- title claim.

We REMAND this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We tax costs of this appeal against the party that incurred them. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.4.

SIGNED February 8, 2017.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice