alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014461EN.01001901.xml

| 20.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 461/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 461/19

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 12 December 2014

adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2014

(2014/C 461/11)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,

1

Whereas:

| — | the Union's budget for the financial year 2014 was definitively adopted on 20 November 2013 (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union's budget for the financial year 2014 was definitively adopted on 20 November 2013 (2),

2

| — | on 17 October 2014, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 7 to the general budget for the financial year 2014, |
| --- | --- |

—

on 17 October 2014, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 7 to the general budget for the financial year 2014,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council's position on draft amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2014 was adopted on 12 December 2014.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 12 December 2014.

For the Council

The President

S. GIANNINI

---

(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 51, 20.2.2014, p. 1, with corrigenda in OJ L 111, 15.4.2014, p. 96, OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 30 and OJ L 322, 7.11.2014, p. 1.

2

---
May 7, 2009 e-mail about ADM plant energy sources

From: "Frommelt, Dean" Dean.Frommelt@adm.com

To: Julie Boledovich/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Julie, 

Sorry for the delay in response to your questions.

Estimated dates of ethanol production at the following facilities are noted in brackets 

below. Also, you reference these as "coal-fired ethanol plants" but I'd like to clarify that 

each of these plants do vary in fuels used for the ethanol production. Some of the plants

burn a high percentage of coal but also may have some biomass, tire derived fuels, and 

other materials co-fired while a couple of the others actually have a higher gas 

percentage than coal for the fuels. 

Cedar Rapids, IA (wet mill) [≈1981]

Clinton, IA [ADM acquired ≈1981]

Decatur, IL [≈1976]

Peoria, IL [ADM acquired ≈1980]

Walhalla, ND, [ADM acquired ≈1990]

Columbus, NE (wet mill) - 1994 [ADM ≈2002]

Marshall, MN - 1988 [ADM ≈2002]

Also, the new dry mills for Cedar Rapids, IA and Columbus, NE commenced 

construction July 2007 and October 2006, respectively. The Columbus dry mill and 

Cedar Rapids dry mills are still under construction. Their progress and anticipated startup under review. 

Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Dean

Dean Frommelt

Divisional Environmental Manager

Corn Processing & BioProducts

1001 Brush College Road

Decatur, IL 62521

Phone: 217-451-6330

Mobile: 217-358-0317

Fax: 217-451-7415

dean.frommelt@adm.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF NATIONAL PROPERTIES INVESTMENT TRUST AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          64,395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               133,057
<PP&E>                                       1,561,142
<DEPRECIATION>                                 637,656
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,056,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,873
<BONDS>                                        585,117
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,735,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,056,543
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,648
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,364
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (51,010)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,274
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,274
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,274
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
#### Paul Slatsky, Appellant, v Great Neck Plumbing Supply, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 201]

*777In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered March 24, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the complaint is reinstated, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he tripped over a bag of cement on the floor of the defendants’ store. At the trial, the plaintiff produced evidence that the placement of the bag constituted an unsafe condition and that the defendants had failed to provide an adequate warning. The defendants produced evidence that the bag was not inherently dangerous and constituted an open and obvious condition.

Although there is no duty to warn of an open and obvious condition, that principle does not absolve a landowner or occupier of the duty to maintain the property in reasonably safe condition *(see Cupo v Karfunkel,*1 AD3d 48, 51-52 [2003]; *see also Vinci v Vasaturo,*8 AD3d 262 [2004]; *Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts.,*5 AD3d 69, 73 [2004]; *DiVietro v Gould Palisades Corp.,*4 AD3d 324, 325 [2004]; *Luksch v Blum-Rohl Fishing Corp.,*3 AD3d 475, 477 [2004]). In light of the evidence presented by the plaintiff at the trial, the Supreme Court properly charged the “failure to warn” component of PJI3d 2:90 (2006 Supp) in addition to the standard charge regarding the existence of an unsafe condition on the premises.

In giving its “failure to warn” charge, however, the Supreme Court omitted that portion of the instruction directing that, if the jury determined that the alleged unsafe condition was open and obvious and therefore there was no duty to warn, it should then proceed to consider the plaintiffs other claims concerning the unsafe condition *(see*PJI3d 2:90 [2006 Supp]). Under the circumstances of this case, that omission rendered the charge as given both confusing and prejudicial as it may have led the jury impermissibly to conclude that the defendants could not be found negligent if the condition was open and obvious. Accordingly, we grant a new trial *(see Maloney Carpentry, Inc. v Budnick,*19 AD3d 378 [2005]; *Smith v Midwood Realty Assoc.,*289 AD2d 391 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains suummary information extracted from the Company's Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         936,398
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  467,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,305
<INVENTORY>                                     14,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,570,954
<PP&E>                                         170,435
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,499,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,826
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       932,333
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,546,665
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,499,824
<SALES>                                        651,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               651,028
<CGS>                                          160,244
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  518,312
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                132,716
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            132,716
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   132,716
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 6 of 6
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASfflNGTON, DC 

Sterling Aviation, LLC 

Complainant, 

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-09-03 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abbvereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federatty-Assi^d 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to April 16, 2010. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

MAR 1 C 2010 

Michael J. CrDorm»il 

Director, Airport Safety 

and Standards Division 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March // , 2010,1 caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the foregoing document addressed 

to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Kent S. Jackson 

Lori N. Edwards 

Jackson & Wade, L.L.C. 

21628 Midland Drive 

Shawnee, KS 66218 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Scott P. Lewis 

Melissa C. Allison 

Anderson & Kreiger LLP 

Once Canal Park, Suite 200 

Cambridge, MA 02141 

Timothy R. Karaskiewicz 

Office of the Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel 

Milwaukee County and General Mitchell 

International Airport 

901 North Ninth Street, Room 303 

Milwaukee, WI 53233 

Anne Torgerson 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Field Operations
1401.7001-5 Acquisition Management

Reviews.

Acquisition Management Reviews (AMRs) are to be conducted using the Government Accountability

Office's (GAO) “Framework for Assessing the Acquisition Function at Federal Agencies” available at

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05218g.pdf.

Parent topic: Subpart 1401.70 - Acquisition Reviews
652.000 Scope of part.

This part sets forth solicitation provisions and contract clauses, in addition to those prescribed in

FAR Part 52, for use in DOS acquisitions.

Parent topic: PART 652—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
#### In the Matter of Oakmere Cemetery Association, Inc., Respondent, v. Cemetery Board of the State of New York, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 13, 1968, affirmed, without costs and without prejudice to the resolution of any appropriate issues in the corporate dissolution proceeding pending in Supreme Court, New York County. We hold only that the petitioner cemetery corporation has sufficiently proved the necessary factors contained in section 81 (subd. 1, par. [a]) of the Membership Corporations Law, so as to become entitled to Supreme Court approval of its sale of lands which had been dedicated to cemetery use. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and deny the application for approval of the sale of cemetery lands, with the following memorandum: Petitioner bought .the subject property in 1933, and for 35 years has held it free of taxes without ever trying to develop it for cemetery use. Now that prices for vacant land within New York City have skyrocketed, it seeks to abandon the long-intended cemetery use and sell the land for commercial use, thus reaping a windfall profit at the expense of the public. And, as .the record plainly shows, it seeks to do this at a time when there is a crying public need for cemetery land within the city limits. Cemetery corporations traditionally have been nonprofit associations, exempt from land taxes. They hold their property for a public use and operate it as a public trust (L. 1949, ch. 533, § 1; *Grove Hill Realty Co.*v. *Ferncliff Cemetery Assn.,*7 N Y 2d 403, 410; *Diamant*v. *Mount Pleasant Westchester Cemetery Corp.,*10 A D 2d 404). Hence, when a cemetery corporation applies to the court for permission to sell its land, it must first establish that the public interest will be served by the sale. Here, the record shows the contrary. Hence, I believe the grant of per*780mission for the sale of this land was an improvident exercise of discretion by Special Term; its judgment should be reversed and the application should be denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BELINDA GAIL BROWN, * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

 * 

v. * Case No. 3:06cv00710-MHT 

 * 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE* 

COMPANY, et al, * 

 * 

 Defendants. * 

MOTION TO CONTINUE PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL

 Come now the undersigned counsel and respectfully show unto the Court that 

they have another case which they are jointly engaged in litigating which is pending in 

the Southern District of Alabama, (Valerie Davis v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,

Cv 06-452-BH-B). The Davis case has been scheduled for the same Pre-Trial date, 

August 8, and same Trial date, as this case. 

 The parties jointly would respectfully request that this Court move the Pre-trial 

and Trial of the underlying case to the next civil docket. 

 The parties further show unto the Court that this case has never been continued 

before. 

 S/Stephen D. Heninger

 Stephen D. Heninger (ASB 5228E68S) 

 

 HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 

 P. O. Box 11310 

 Birmingham, AL 35202 

 Tel: 205-326-3336 

 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 3:06-cv-00710-MHT-TFM Document 17 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
 s/Richard B. Garrett

 Richard B. Garrett (ASB-0782-A29R) 

RUSHTON, STAKELY, JOHNSTON 

& GARRETT, P.A. 

Post Office box 270 

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0270 

Telephone: 334/206-3100 

 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 

Case 3:06-cv-00710-MHT-TFM Document 17 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying report on Management, that ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB (Regulation AB) for ING USA Global Funding Trust 3 (the Platform) except for the instance of material noncompliance described therein, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, except for
criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), (d)(2)(i)-(vii), (d)(3)(ii) through (iv), and (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by  them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report.
Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the
platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.
Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either
prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance with servicing criteria 1122(d)(3)(i) applicable to the Company during the year ended December 31, 2006. The Company filed the required information for one payment
made during 2006 with the SEC on Form 8-K. Regulation AB requires this information to be filed on Form 10-D and the Company subsequently registered the payment utilizing the appropriate filing.

---

In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance described in the third paragraph, the Company complied, in all material respects, with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2006.



|/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|---------------------



|March 28, 2007
|--------------

---
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 78 FR 34247, June 7, 2013.

§ 1.12 Office of the Inspector General. The Office of the Inspector General— ( a ) Develops policies and standards that govern NRC's financial and management audit program;
( b ) Plans, directs, and executes the long-range, comprehensive audit program;
( c ) Conducts and reports on investigations and inquiries, as necessary, to ascertain and verify the facts with regard to the integrity of all NRC programs and operations;
( d ) Investigates possible irregularities or alleged misconduct of NRC employees and contractors;
( e ) Refers suspected or alleged criminal violations concerning NRC employees or contractors to the Department of Justice;
( f ) Reviews existing and proposed legislation and regulations for their impact on economy and efficiency in the administration of NRC's programs and operations;
( g ) Keeps the Commission and the Congress fully and currently informed, by means of semiannual and other reports, about fraud, abuse, and other serious deficiencies in NRC's programs and operations; and
( h ) Maintains liaison with audit and inspector general organizations and other law enforcement agencies in regard to all matters relating to the promotion of economy and efficiency and the detection of fraud and abuse in programs and operations.
[54 FR 53313, Dec. 28, 1989]
Subpart 608.4—Federal Supply Schedules

Source: 81 FR 24707, Apr. 27, 2016, unless otherwise noted.

Parent topic: PART 608—REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

608.405 Ordering procedures for Federal Supply Schedules.

608.405-3 Blanket Purchase Agreements.

(a) Establishment.

(3)(ii) The Procurement Executive is the head of the agency for the purposes of FAR

8.405–3(a)(3)(ii).
#### O’CONNOR v. FULLER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 27, 1914.)

Action by Julia O’Connor, as executrix, etc., against Maria B. Fuller, as executrix, etc., and the Fuller & O’Connor Construction Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, upon the ground that evidence should have been received as to the indebtedness of the company, and a new trial granted; costs to abide the event.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US-DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             679
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,821
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,108
<PP&E>                                           1,859
<DEPRECIATION>                                     253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,918
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,124
<SALES>                                          2,552
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            1,828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   661
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     62
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        62
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>