alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2014217EN.01000901.xml

| 23.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 217/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 217/9

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 792/2014

of 22 July 2014

implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of 2 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (1), and in particular Article 16(2) thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | On 2 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 2 March 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.

| (2) | The Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping one person on the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Council considers that there are no longer grounds for keeping one person on the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011.

| (3) | Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The entry for the following person shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 204/2011:

| 23. | ZIDANE, Mohamad Ali. |
| --- | --- |

23.

ZIDANE, Mohamad Ali.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 2014.

For the Council

The President

C. ASHTON

---

(1)  OJ L 58, 3.3.2011, p. 1.

1

---
5146.702 General.

(c) See Army Regulation 700-139 for procedures on tracking and accumulating data on warranty

costs.

Parent topic: Subpart 5146.7 - Warranties
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                                                        |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/                Jack DeFrancoJack                DeFranco(Acting                Principal Executive Officer) Date:                November 18, 2005 |

----
#### § 932.108 Noncanning olives.

*Noncanning olives* means those olives which, pursuant to the requirements of § 932.51(a)(2), are to be disposed of as other than canned ripe olives.

[31 FR 12634, Sept. 27, 1966]
**ou.Exhibit
      32.1**




**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 IMCOR Pharmaceutical Co. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jack
      DeFranco (Acting Principal Executive 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.




/s/
              Jack
              DeFrancoJack DeFranco
              (Acting
                  Principal Executive Officer)Date:
                November 17, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 2:06cr169-WKW

) 

WILMONT TIMOTHY BARNETT )

ORDER

Upon consideration of defendant's motion to produce defendant for pretrial (Doc. # 315),

filed September 24, 2007, and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is GRANTED. The United States Marshal is

DIRECTED to produce defendant for the pretrial conference at 3:00 p.m. on September 28, 2007

in courtroom 5-B.

DONE, this 26th day of September, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 332 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 932.11 Grade.

*Grade* means the classification of olives as to quality according to the grading specifications established pursuant to the provisions of this part.
# 5217.7405 Plans and Reports.

   (a)(2) HCAs shall submit by April 15 and October 15 a Consolidated Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA) Management Report, identifying each UCA and unpriced change order with an estimated value of more than $5 million. 

   (b) In the format prescribed at Annex 6, submit the required UCA report to DASN(P) by email at Policy@navy.mil with the subject “DFARS 217.7405 - UCA Management Report” followed by the applicable reporting period/year (e.g. UCA Management Report: April 15, 2014).

**Parent topic:**Subpart 5217.74 - UNDEFINITIZED CONTRACT ACTIONS
§ 905.83 Termination. ( a ) The Secretary may at any time terminate the provisions of this part by giving at least one day's notice by means of a press release or in any other manner which he may determine.
( b ) The Secretary shall terminate the provisions of this part at the end of any fiscal period whenever he finds that such termination is favored by a majority of producers who, during the preceding fiscal period, have been engaged in the production for market of fruit: *Provided,* That such majority have, during such period, produced for market more than 50 percent of the volume of such fruit produced for market, but such termination shall be effective only if announced on or before July 31 of the then current fiscal period.
( c ) The Secretary shall conduct a referendum six years after the effective date of this paragraph and every sixth year thereafter to ascertain whether continuance of this part is favored by producers. The Secretary may terminate the provisions of this part at the end of any fiscal period in which the Secretary has found that continuance of this part is not favored by producers who during a representative period, determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the production for market of the fruit in the production area. Such termination shall be announced on or before July 31 of the fiscal period.
( d ) The provisions of this part shall, in any event, terminate whenever the provisions of the act authorizing it cease to be in effect.
[22 FR 10734, Dec. 27, 1957. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 54 FR 37293, Sept. 8, 1989]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2281

RONNIE BAZILE, a/k/a Ronnie Aaron,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NFL - BALTIMORE RAVENS, PROPERTIES,

INCORPORATED; ART MODELL, Former Owner; STEVE

BISCIOTTI, Owner; DAVID MODELL, Former Owner,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA05-2526-1)

Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 18, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Bazile, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Bazile appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his copyright infringement action as frivolous under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Bazile v. NFL, No. CA-05-2526-1 (D. Md.

filed Oct. 21, 2005; entered Oct. 24, 2005). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Catherine Keane, Respondent, v. Howard R. Leary et al., Constituting the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article 2, Appellants. In the Matter of Marie Wein, Respondent, v. Howard R. Leary et al., Constituting the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article 2, Appellants. In the Matter of Margaret Melley, Respondent, v. Howard R. Leary et al., Constituting the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article 2, Appellants.

These appeals are consolidated and the orders entered below, respectively, on March 25, 1969 and March 26, 1969 granting petitioners’ motions to the extent of remitting the proceedings to the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund for reconsideration of petitioners’ applications for benefits, unanimously reversed on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the petitions are dismissed. Under subdivision 2 of section 207-g of the General Municipal Law or under subdivision d of section B18-15.0 of the Administrative Code the remand was on the basis of the board’s alleged *“*authority and discretion ” pursuant to section B18-15.0 of the code to consider unused vacation time and/or accrued terminal leave in determining eligibility for death gamble benefits and to reduce the statutory period of service required by a deceased member for death gamble benefits in any particular year when fixing the amount of service. The governing statutes, by express provision, limit the rights to death gamble benefits to members who have *“*completed the minimum period of service”. The provisions in question are clear and unambiguous. At the time of each of the petitioner’s decedent’s death, the decedent had not completed a minimum period of service, in each ease 20 years. Under subdivision 2 of section 207-g of the General Municipal Law or subdivision d of section B18-38.0 of the Administrative Code, petitioners’ reliance on section B18-15.0 of the Administrative Code is misplaced. The section makes clear in its opening sentence that it is subject to *“*all other provisions of this article”. The article in question is article 29 of the Administrative Code, embracing therefore, subdivision d of section B18-38.0. That section expressly provides that the benefit involved shall be paid upon the death of a member who has “ completed the minimum period of service, as elected by him for retirement ”. The grant of authority and discretion in the board is contained in subdivision b of section B18—15.0. This grant is limited and circumscribed. It speaks only of *“*service ” rendered, which would exclude therefore, service not rendered and *a fortiori*service which could not possibly have been rendered, as, for example, in the period following the^ member’s death. In the light of the said statutes, we are constrained Concur to dismiss the petitions. — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, McNally and Tilzer, JJ.
15.607 Criteria for acceptance and

negotiation of an unsolicited proposal.

(S-90) A final determination to accept or reject an unsolicited proposal will be made by the Vice,

Procurement Services Executive (PSE), or by the PSE.

(S-91) PL22 will draft a proposed letter to accept or reject the unsolicited proposal, citing regulatory

reasons if the unsolicited proposal is rejected, and may using statements from the evaluation.

Parent topic: SUBPART 15.6 — UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS
## \<.V ^ v«^~':r ^ Vo M \m-m i ••••"•"^ARIMENTOF •.'.^::P0RWI0 N Januar y 19'*

^ 201 1 . -MQPERA^IOM S RE : Docke t

OST-1998-4899 , S EEA S ";; i li? . - U ^ W

- 2 8 M y family , m y husband' s family , ha s live di nWrangel l fo r man y years . W e hav e raise dchildre nan dru n ou r businesse s here . T o sto p th e curren t Alask aAirline s je t servic e t o ou r

communit y woul db e adisaste r o f suc hproportio ntha t

many , i f no t al l o f u s her e woul dno t

b e abl e t o surviv e it . Man y o f ou r resident s hav e ongoin g healt hissue s tha t requir e th e abilit y t o fly ou t t o large r citie s fo r medica l treatmen t

o r procedures , ofte no naregular , lon g ter mbasis . Thi s i s no t

th e sam e as emergenc y medica l evacuation , bu t trave l a s an optio n fo r

vita l medica l treatment . Commerciall y Alask aAirline s i s criticall y importan t t o many . On e exampl e i s thos e wh o hav e smal l bu t ver y importan t

market s fo r

sam e da y fres hfish . Anothe r exampl e i s th e man y time s I personall y hav e see nproductio ncom e t o a sudden , sto p becaus e o f

equipmen t

failure , causin g immediat e los s o f revenue , an dai r freigh t i s critica l t o ge t

th e part s i n plac e ASA Pt o resum e th e flo w of operation . Th e man y smal l communitie s o f S EAlask aar e i nrealit y outlyin g neighborhood s t o eac hother . Ou r children , parents , siblings , grandchildre nan d othe r famil y member s liv e i n al l o f thes e communitie s an dw e rel y o nAlask a Airline s t o sta y connecte di nver y rea l ways . Withou t th e optio no f

ai r trave l w e woul dhav e amuc hharde r tim e havin g acces s t o eac hother . Th e je t provide s an econom y of

tim e whe n al l w e hav e i s acoupl e o f day s t o gathe r

as afamily . Th e je t ease s th e hardshi p o f

distanc e whe nw e ar e neede di ntime s o f emergenc y at

a plac e tha t woul db e day s awa y instea dof th e hour s b y areliabl y schedule d commercia l flight . N o on e her e ha s th e abilit y tha t folk s i n roa dlinke dtown s tak e fo r grante dof bein g abl e t o ge t

i n aca r an ddriv e t o anothe r

town . Man y of

u s d o no t

ow na boa t capabl e o f

inter-islan dtravel , an dver y few o f u s canaffordth e expens e o f charte dflight-whic hb y th e wa y i s muc hmor e limite db y environmenta l conditions . I n short , th e dail y servic e o f Alask aAirline s t o ou r

smal l communit y make s a great deal o f wha t w e d o an dho w w e d o i t possible . Th e je t

servic e i s trul y vita l t o us .Than k

you , Lis aTorgramse n P.O . Bo x 1959 Wrangell , A

K 9992 9
Subpart 5229.3 - STATE AND LOCAL TAXES

Parent topic: Part 5229 - TAXES

5229.302 Application of State and local taxes to the

Government.

(b) Ordering officers and disbursing officers may issue the Forms, as may other officials designated

by the contracting officer.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-50138

consolidated with

No. 22-50143

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Diego Hernandez-Herrera, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-890-1

USDC No. 4:21-CR-894-1

Before Jolly, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Diego Hernandez-Herrera appeals his conviction and sentence for 

illegal reentry after removal, as well as the judgment revoking his term of 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50138 Document: 00516518792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2022
No. 22-50138

c/w No. 22-501423

2

supervised release for a prior offense. He has not briefed, and has therefore 

abandoned, any challenge to the revocation of supervised release or his 

revocation sentence. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 

1993).

For the first time on appeal, Hernandez-Herrera argues that his 

sentence exceeds the statutory maximum and is therefore unconstitutional 

because the district court enhanced his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

based on facts that were neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury 

beyond a reasonable doubt. While he acknowledges this argument is 

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he 

nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. In 

addition, Hernandez-Herrera has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

disposition. 

Subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States, 

570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not 

overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 

(5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Hernandez-Herrera is correct that his argument is 

foreclosed, and summary disposition is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., 

Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 

Hernandez-Herrera’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s 

judgments are AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-50138 Document: 00516518792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2022
#### § 900.57 Intervention.

Intervention in proceedings subject to this subpart shall not be allowed, except that, in the discretion of the Secretary or the judge, any person (other than the petitioner) showing a substantial interest in the outcome of a proceeding shall be permitted to participate in the oral argument and to file a brief.
Subpart 5649.1 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Parent topic: Part 5649 - TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS

5649.101 Authorities and Responsibilities.

(f) Contracting officers shall coordinate termination actions as necessary with the servicing Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA) office and request in writing that DCMA perform the

Termination Contracting Officer (TCO) functions in accordance with FAR 49.105 .
#### DEL GENOVESE, Appellant, v. DEL GENOVESE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Fidalma Del Genovese, as administratrix, etc., of Virgillio Del Genovese, deceased, against Alfredo Del Genovese.

PER CURIAM.

We think that, during the time of the lease taken by plaintiff’s husband, the decedent, his status was such as to justify a demand in equity for an accounting in equity. The judgment is therefore reversed, and a new trial is granted, costs to abide the final award of costs, with leave to plaintiff to apply at Special Term for any amendment of her complaint that she may be advised is proper. See New York & Brooklyn Ferry Co. v. Moore, 18 Abb. N. C. 106; Marvin v. Brooks, 94 N. Y. 71; Parker v. Pullman Co., 36 App. Div. 208, 56 N. Y. Supp. 734. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1112.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS2839 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 2 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 2 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 2 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 3 of 3
§ 948.150 Reestablishment of committee membership. Pursuant to § 948.53, membership on each area committee shall be reestablished as follows: ( a ) Area No. 2 (San Luis Valley): Nine producers and five handlers selected as follows: (1) Two (2) producers from Rio Grande County; (2) Two (2) producers from either Saguache County or Chaffee County; (3) One (1) producer from either Conejos or Costilla County. (4) Two (2) producers from Alamosa County; (5) One (1) producer from all other counties in Area No. 2; (6) One (1) producer representing certified seed producers in Area No. 2; (7) Two (2) handlers representing bulk handlers in Area No. 2; (8) Three (3) handlers representing handlers in Area No. 2 other than bulk handlers.
( b ) *Area No. 3:* Three producers and two handlers selected as follows: Three (3) producers and two (2) handlers from any county in Area No. 3.
[52 FR 12515, Apr. 17, 1987, as amended at 58 FR 8541, Feb. 16, 1993; 60 FR 16566, Mar. 31, 1995; 67 FR 68021, Nov. 8, 2002; 68 FR 40119, July 7, 2003; 78 FR 30745, May 23, 2013]
### Page 1 of 3 Disposition Comments

Docket No: 

### FAA

- 2013

- 0637 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 

### 2013

- SW

- 030

- AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.:

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM



### N o C omments/Only Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.

No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

lis t latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. 

### I

have verified that the 2 ASBs referenced in the AD have not been revised since the

NPRM was issued as follows:

ASB 76

- 65

- 65 is at the original issue dated March 22, 2012

ASB 76

- 65

- 22 is at the original issue dated Dec 14, 2004

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and

desc ribe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA

- IR

- M

- 8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one o f the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is req uested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY A GREE

, we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO

, we don’t agree because

ISSUE 2 : Select one of the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3 If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO

, we don’t agree because

For additional issues, double

- click here

### Page 3 of 3 S ignature Section

Signature in dicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.:

ASE Printed Name : Date

Branch Manager Date
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 868.83 Automatic suspension of license by change in employment.

A license issued to an individual shall be automatically suspended when the individual ceases to be employed by the cooperator. If the individual is reemployed by the cooperator or employed by another cooperator within 1 year of the suspension date and the license has not terminated in the interim, upon request of the licensee, the license will be reinstated subject to the provisions of § 868.81(a) and (b).

[53 FR 3722, Feb. 9, 1988. Redesignated and amended at 60 FR 16364, 16365, Mar. 30, 1995]