alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 5.600 Notice of covered programs.

Within 60 days of September 29, 2000, each Federal agency that awards Federal financial assistance shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the programs covered by these Title IX regulations. Each such Federal agency shall periodically republish the notice of covered programs to reflect changes in covered programs. Copies of this notice also shall be made available upon request to the Federal agency's office that enforces Title IX.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 30, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 30, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0127. WENDY STANLEY v. JOSEPH TATHAM, JR..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 16CV3533
§ 603.525 Value and reasonableness of the recipient's cost sharing contribution. The contracting officer must: ( a ) Determine that the recipient's cost sharing contributions meet the criteria for cost sharing and determine values for them, in accordance with §§ 603.530 through 603.555. In doing so, the contracting officer must: ( 1 ) Ensure that there are affirmative statements from any third parties identified as sources of cash contributions, and
( 2 ) Include in the award file an evaluation that documents how the values of the recipient's contributions to the funding of the project were determined.
( b ) Judge that the recipient's cost sharing contribution, as a percentage of the total budget, is reasonable. To the maximum extent practicable, the recipient must provide at least half of the costs of the project, in accordance with § 603.215.
# EUR-Lex - 31978R1423 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31978R1423

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 1423/78 of 20 June 1978 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 on the common organization of the market in pigmeat **

*
Official Journal L 171 , 28/06/1978 P. 0019 - 0019 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 10 P. 0036 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 21 P. 0218 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 10 P. 0036 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 14 P. 0163 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 14 P. 0163 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1423/78 of 20 June 1978 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 on the common organization of the market in pigmeat

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas Article 5 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in pigmeat (2), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 367/76 (3), lays down that the intervention buying-in price for pig carcases of standard quality may not be more than 92 % or less than 85 % of the basic price;

Whereas in view of the considerable variations in the production costs of pig carcases during the last few years, in the Community and on the world market, it is desirable to widen the range within which the intervention buying-in price for pig carcases may be fixed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 shall be replaced by the following:

"1. The buying-in price for pig carcases of standard quality may not be more than 92 % or less than 78 % of the basic price."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1978.

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

Done at Luxembourg, 20 June 1978.

For the Council

The President

P. DALSAGER (1)Opinion delivered on 16 June 1978 (not yet published in the Official Journal). (2)OJ No L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 1. (3)OJ No L 45, 21.2.1976, p. 1.
#### § 603.870 Marking of documents related to inventions.

To protect the recipient's interest in inventions, the TIA should require the recipient to mark documents disclosing inventions it desires to protect by obtaining a patent. The recipient should mark the documents with a legend identifying them as intellectual property subject to public release or public disclosure restrictions, as provided in 35 U.S.C. 205.
# L_2023102EN.01009001.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 102/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 102/90

---

JOINT DECLARATION OF THE UNION AND THE UNITED KINGDOM IN THE JOINT COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED BY THE AGREEMENT ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY

of 24 March 2023

on Article 13(3a) of the Windsor Framework (1)

The Union and the United Kingdom recognise that for a notification under Article 13(3a) of the Windsor Framework to be made in good faith in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (2) (‘the Withdrawal Agreement’), it needs to be made under each of the conditions set out in paragraph 1 of the Unilateral Declaration by the United Kingdom on involvement of the institutions of the 1998 Agreement, as annexed to Decision No 1/2023 (3).

2

3

In case the arbitration panel has ruled, in accordance with Article 175 of the Withdrawal Agreement, that the United Kingdom has failed to comply with Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement in relation to a notification under Article 13(3a) of the Windsor Framework, swift compliance with the ruling of the arbitration panel should be achieved, as set out in Recommendation No 2/2023 (4).

4

---

(1)  See Joint Declaration No 1/2023.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 29, 31.1.2020, p.7.

2

(3)  Decision No 1/2023 of the Joint Committee established by the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community of 24 March 2023 laying down arrangements relating to the Windsor Framework (see page 61 of this Official Journal).

3

(4)  Recommendation No 2/2023 of the Joint Committee established by the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community of 24 March 2023 on Article 13(3a) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (see page 86 of this Official Journal).

4

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40488

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH SIMMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-01-CR-1109-ALL

--------------------

December 12, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Simms appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence

for possessing with the intent to distribute less than 50

kilograms of marijuana. Simms argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841, the

statute under which he was convicted and sentenced, was rendered

facially unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466, 490 (2000). Simms concedes that his argument is foreclosed

by our opinion in United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 581-
No. 02-40488

-2-

82 (5th Cir. 2000)(revised opinion), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1045

(2001), which rejected a broad Apprendi-based attack on the

constitutionality of that statute. He raises the issue only to

preserve it for Supreme Court review. 

A panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s

decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding

decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States

Supreme Court. Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466

(5th Cir. 1999). No such decision overruling Slaughter exists. 

Accordingly, Simms’s argument is indeed foreclosed. The judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
## 2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
3-7-2007 

# S ecr et a r y L a

b or v . C omm T r u s t C o P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-2785

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" S e cr e t a r y L a

bor v . C omm T r us t C o " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1394. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1394

## PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 05-2785/4828 ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
v. COMMUNITY TRUST COMPANY, Appellant.

___________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 05-mc-00018 District Judge: Hon. Mary A. McLaughlin

____________________ Argued on March 9, 2006 Before: ALDISERT, and ROTH*, Circuit Judges RODRIGUEZ**, District Judge

(Opinion filed January 19, 2007) 

## ORDER AMENDING OPINION

_________________ *Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31, 2006. **The Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez, Senior United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

## ROTH , Circuit Judge :
IT IS ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed January 19, 2007, be amended as follows: On page 22, L.19, delete the following: “Koresko , however, did not consider Shaw vis-à-vis the GLBA because the subjects of the subpoena in that case were not financial institutions. For that reason, Koresko and Penn-Mott were not able to invoke the GLBA as a defense. Therefore, Koresko is distinguishable on this point.” and replace with the following: “ Koresko , however, did not consider Shaw vis-à-vis the GLBA. Therefore, Koresko is distinguishable.
By the Court,
/s/ Jane R. Roth Circuit Judge Dated: March 7, 2007 lwc/cc: Lowell R. Gates, Esq. Albert N. Peterlin, Esq. Ellen L. Beard, Esq. Robyn Swanson, Esq.
exv10we






EXHIBIT 10(e)




Schedule of Executive Officers who are Parties

to the Amended and Restated Severance Agreements in the Forms Filed as

Exhibit 10(d) to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2009



Form A of Severance Pay Agreement




Christopher M. Connor

John G. Morikis

Sean P. Hennessy



Form B of Severance Pay Agreement




John L. Ault

George E. Heath

Thomas E. Hopkins

Timothy A. Knight

Steven J. Oberfeld

Thomas W. Seitz

Louis E. Stellato

Robert J. Wells
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of The First Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), thiscertification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

Date: May 7, 2009

 

/s/ Daniel R. Daigneault

Daniel R. Daigneault

President & Chief Executive Officer

The First Bancorp, Inc.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

September 30, 2016 

Mexican Water Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation 

Red Mesa TP #1019, HC 61 Box 38 

TeecNosPos, AZ 86514 

ATTN: Martha Saggboy 

Subject: Request to retain public documents at the Mexican Water Chapter for public 

inspection 

Dear Ms. Saggboy: 

The purpose of this letter is to request that the Mexican Water Chapter of the Navajo Nation 

Reservation retain the enclosed package at the library for at least sixty (60) days for public 

inspection. The package consists of documents related to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency's final decision on the Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

amendment permit for the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation 

Indian Reservation near the city of Aneth, San Juan County, Utah. 

We would greatly appreciate your assistance for making these documents available to the general 

public. Please contact me at (415) 947-4156 or r9airpermits@epa.gov if you have any questions. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

�M 

Shaheerah Kelly 

Environmental Engineer 

Permits Office, Air Division
Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 32 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
PGI 245.105 Contractors property

management system compliance.

(d) Disposition of findings.

(2) Initial determination.

(ii)(A) Within 10 days of receiving the report, if the contracting officer makes a determination that

there is a significant deficiency, the contracting officer should provide an initial determination of

deficiencies and a copy of the report to the contractor and require the contractor to submit a written

response.

(C) Evaluation of contractor's response. Within 30 days of receiving the contractor’s response, the

contracting officer, in consultation with the auditor or cognizant functional specialist, should

evaluate the contractor’s response and make a final determination.

(3) Final Determination.

(ii)(A) Monitoring contractor's corrective action. The contracting officer and property administrator

shall monitor the contractor's progress in correcting deficiencies. If the contractor fails to make

adequate progress, the contracting officer shall take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the

contractor corrects the deficiencies. Examples of actions the contracting officer can take are:

withdraw or withhold approval of the system; bringing the issue to the attention of higher level

management, implementing or increasing the withholding in accordance with the clause at

252.242-7005, Contractor Business Systems, and recommending non-award of potential contracts.

(B) Correction of significant deficiencies.

(1) When the contractor notifies the contracting officer that the contractor has corrected the

significant deficiencies, the contracting officer shall request the property administrator to review the

correction to determine if the deficiencies have been resolved.

(2) The contracting officer shall determine if the contractor has corrected the deficiencies.

(3) If the contracting officer determines the contractor has corrected the deficiencies, the

contracting officer's notification shall be sent to the property administrator; auditor; payment office;

appropriate action officers responsible for reporting past performance at the requiring activities;

and each contracting and contract administration office having substantial business with the

contractor as applicable.

Parent topic: PGI 245.1 - GENERAL
IV 

House Calendar No. 99 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 474 

[Report No. 109–242] 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 

bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 

Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to 

accompany the bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations 

for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations for 

4 the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year 

5 ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. All 
2 

HRES 474 RH 

1 points of order against the conference report and against 

2 its consideration are waived. The conference report shall 

3 be considered as read. 

House Calendar No. 99 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 474 

[Report No. 109–242] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference re2006, and for other purposes. Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, appropriations for the Department of Homeland port to accompany the bill (H.R. 2360) making 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
§ 52.75 Filing of applications. ( a ) Any person except one excluded by § 50.38 of this chapter may file an application for a combined license for a nuclear power facility with the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
( b ) The application must comply with the applicable filing requirements of §§ 52.3 and 50.30 of this chapter.
( c ) The fees associated with the filing and review of the application are set forth in 10 CFR part 170.
[72 FR 49517, Aug. 28, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 5724, Jan. 31, 2008; 84 FR 65645, Nov. 29, 2019]
#### Ebipamone N. Nanakumo, Appellant, v Michael Gregory et al., Respondents.

[813 NYS2d 915]

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a sale of an interest in a cooperative apartment, and, in effect, to vacate a judgment of possession of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Housing Part, Kings County, dated June 30, 2004, and a warrant of eviction, dated December 28, 2004, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated January 31, 2005, which, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from an order that does not decide a motion made on notice, and we decline to grant leave to appeal *(see*CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; *Sholes v Meagher,*100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]; *French v French,*12 AD3d 484 [2004]). Florio, J.P., Crane, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
#### Fred A. Haase, Conservator, and Fred A. Haase, Individually, Appellee, v. Anna L. Haase et al., Defendants. Appeal of Anna L. Haase, Appellant.

Gen. No. 41,262.

opinion filed June 26, 1940.

Maurice Lavine and David J. A. Hayes, for appellant; Daniel A. Wolf, for appellee.

Opinion by

Justice John J. Sullivan.

“Not to be published in full.”
1 Attachment 

Nick - 

Thanks for your cooperation and understanding of our concerns regarding the method for determining the MACT 

floors for the applicable Zeon Polymers & Resins I (Subpart U) processes. Since we last spoke, we have been 

reviewing and assembling the requested data for our KY Plant and its NBR processes. Wednesday evening, I sent 

the confidential nitrile rubber and latex production data to EPA's Roberto Morales by overnight U.S. Express 

Mail. He should have received the information yesterday. The data covers the four years prior to 2009. 2009 

production data was sent to EPA last year as part of our initial 114 Questionnaire response. 

On the attached sheet, we are providing the acrylonitrile and butadiene emissions for 2005-2009. As you 

approved, we are providing the total emissions for each constituent for all "back-end" nitrile manufacturing vents. 

In reviewing EC/R's memo to EPA of 7/19/10, we noted that some NBR back-end vents were omitted from the 

total. Hence, we are providing the correct totals for 2009. A listing is also provided of all KY Plant back-end 

NBR process vents to help minimize any confusion. 

We are still compiling and analyzing the data for our MS Plant and its epichlorohydrin rubber processes. The 

benefit of averaging data from additional recent years of manufacturing is not apparent in this case. We would 

suggest you first review the KY Plant data and propose a method of its use in the setting of a reasonable NBR 

back-end standard. At that time, we could discuss with you the challenge with the MS Plant data and explore any 

viable alternative means of setting reasonable back-end standards that will provide sufficient operational 

flexibility in our epichlorohydrin rubber manufacturing. 

Tom Herman, P.E. 

Corporate Environmental Manager 

Zeon Chemicals L.P. 

502-775-7719 

(See attached file: MACT 114 Emissions KY 1-11.docx)

"This transmission including any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 

intended recipient, or their agent, you are hereby notified that reading, disclosing, copying, distributing or using 

any information contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in 

error, please immediately notify the sender or forward the e-mail to abuse@zeonchemicals.com and destroy the 

transmission. Thank you for your assistance." 

Supplemental MACT Data 

Tom Herman 

to: 

Nick Parsons 

01/28/2011 09:26 AM 

Cc: 

Bill Simpson, Bob Barlow 

Show Details 

History: This message has been forwarded.

MACT 114 Emissions KY 1-11.docx

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web2059.... 3/31/2011
§ 603.315 Advantages of a fixed-support TIA. In situations where the use of a fixed-support TIA is permissible (see §§ 603.305 and 603.310), its use may encourage some commercial firms' participation in the RD&D. With a fixed-support TIA, the contracting officer can eliminate or reduce some post-award requirements that sometimes are cited as disincentives for those firms to participate. For example, a fixed-support TIA need not: ( a ) Specify minimum standards for the recipient's financial management system;
( b ) Specify cost principles or standards stating the types of costs the recipient may charge to the project;
( c ) Provide for financial audits by Federal auditors or independent public accountants of the recipient's books and records;
( d ) Set minimum standards for the recipient's purchasing system; or
( e ) Require the recipient to prepare financial reports for submission to the Federal Government.