alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31978R1153 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31978R1153

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 1153/78 of 30 May 1978 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2517/69 laying down certain measures for reorganizing Community fruit production **

*
Official Journal L 144 , 31/05/1978 P. 0004 - 0004 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 21 P. 0097 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 14 P. 0070 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 14 P. 0070 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1153/78 of 30 May 1978 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2517/69 laying down certain measures for reorganizing Community fruit production

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 42 and 43 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

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

Whereas under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2517/69 of 9 December 1969 laying down certain measures for reorganizing Community fruit production (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 794/76 (3), all national aid intended to encourage directly or indirectly the planting or replanting of apple, pear or peach orchards is forbidden;

Whereas it would nevertheless be useful to encourage the conversion of existing orchards to varieties which are better suited to regional production conditions and to changes in demand ; whereas, to that end, it would be appropriate to lift the ban on Member States granting national aid for the replanting of apple, pear and peach orchards,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2517/69 shall be replaced by the following:

"Article 4

Subject to Article 92 (2) of the Treaty, all aid which may be granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever and intended to encourage directly or indirectly the planting or enlargement of apple, pear or peach orchards shall be forbidden."

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 30 May 1978.

For the Council

The President

I. NØRGAARD (1)OJ No C 108, 8.5.1978, p. 49. (2)OJ No L 318, 18.12.1969, p. 15. (3)OJ No L 93, 8.4.1976, p. 3.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Axiom Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), Andrew Hilton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.

   The Annual Report, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.

   The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:

   /s/ Andrew HiltonAndrew HiltonPrincipal Financial Officer
 Dated: April 30, 2015
§ 600.501 Definitions. The definitions in § 600.3 of this part, including the definition of the term “financial assistance,” are applicable to this subpart. In addition, as used in this subpart: *Act* means the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
*Company* means any business entity other than an organization of the type described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C. § 501 (c)(3)).
*Covered program* means a program under Titles XX through XXIII of the Act. (A list of covered programs, updated periodically as appropriate, is maintained and published by the Department of Energy.)
*Parent company* means a company that: ( 1 ) Exercises ultimate ownership of the applicant company either directly, by ownership of a majority of that company's voting securities, or indirectly, by control over a majority of that company's voting securities through one or more intermediate subsidiary companies or otherwise, and
( 2 ) Is not itself subject to the ultimate ownership control of another company.
*United States* means the several States, the District of Columbia, and all commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
*United States-owned company* means: ( 1 ) A company that has majority ownership by individuals who are citizens of the United States, or
( 2 ) A company organized under the laws of a State that either has no parent company or has a parent company organized under the laws of a State.
*Voting security* has the meaning given the term in the Public Utility Holding Company Act (15 U.S.C. 15b(17)).
U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 NewJerseyAvenue S.E., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. Subject Docket No. FAA-2012-0561 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AEh\;-7, ! i

.. ; Dear Honorable Board: From my perspective as an aircraft owner ofan eligible aircraft of4 seats and 180 Hp Beech Sundowner C-23 I wholeheartedly support Docket FAA-2012-0350 Supported and made byAOPA and EAA.
First Iwould like to saythat among myfriends ofwhom are in their 50's and not Pilots, I am among the healthiest and always have been since I began flying. This directly attributed to my desireforflying safely via being physicallyfit. For my safety and my passengers safety I selfcertify my health priorto every flight. I do not consider that the 3rd class medical I hold has ever made me a safer pilot. When I am notfeeling in top physical and mental condition I choose not to fly. Mywife can attestto this, as she has suggested we go flying on occasions and Itell her I'mjust not on top of my gametoday and we then drive to see a movie or do another activity. The special online educational medical assessment certification course proposed is a super Idea 

### &method to better educate all pilots on being aware oftheir health status priorto flight and to be proactive in managing their selves to Good Health! Additionally, I am currently discussing the future loaning out my aircraftto a sport pilot & upcoming private pilotwhom I mentored and helped get an engineering internship in aviation. He's 24 years & very healthy and probably would not have pursued his license had he needed to seekthe medical. he told me. His friends are all interested after flying with him but do notwantto travel the long distanceto an airport with the sport planes as he had to do. They have said theywould travel to the nearer airports, but simply are not into getting a necessary 3rd class medical needed to fly the available aircraft/trainers. That said; eliminating the unneeded burden ofthe 3rd Class Medical certificate would extend flying for a LOT ofsafe pilots thatfly recreationally like me and to initiate a lot of newer pilots into the ran s. Ofthis I am very Sincerely,

# j fJ1 

# tf{ Stephen M. Bobb 6405 Meadlowlark Dr Dunkirk MD, 20754 443-624-0385
#### MORGAN v. MORGAN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

December 17, 1914.)

Landlord and Tenant (§ 306*)—Summary Proceedings—Pleading-—Proof.

A plaintiff, who seeks as landlord in summary proceedings the removal of defendant as tenant for nonpayment of rent, must, to obtain a final order, prove the allegations of his petition, and he cannot sustain an order on the theory that defendant, alleging an invalid gift, is a mere squatter.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. § 1313; Dec. Dig! § 306.*]

. Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.

Action by John Morgan against Theresa K. Morgan and others. From a final order in summary proceedings for plaintiff, as landlord, defendants appeal. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued November term, 1914, before LEHMAN, DELANY, and WHITAKER, JJ.

John J. Cunneen, of New York City, for appellant Theresa K. Morgan.

Frederick L. Kane, of New York City, for appellant John Morgan.

Alexander Thain, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

LEHMAN, J.

The tenant appeals from a final order in summary proceedings entered upon the direction of a verdict. The order is based upon a petition alleging nonpayment of rent after demand. There is no proof of agency on the part of the person making the petition, there is no proof of a demand, and whatever slender proof there is of a lease is met by the proof of the defendant that she occupied the premises under a gift from a former owner.

Conceding that the alleged gift is invalid, still, if the defendant’s testimony is true, she entered into no contract, express or implied, to pay rent. The plaintiff does not seriously contend that'he has con*555clusively proven the allegations of his complaint, hut does contend that the final order should be sustained, on the ground that he has shown that the defendant is a squatter. The court has, however, obtained jurisdiction only by means of his sworn petition, and the plaintiff cannot thereafter seek to sustain a final order, unless he has made proof according to his allegations. Regardless, therefdre, of any question of whether the petitioner can bring a new petition upon other facts, it appears that the present order must be reversed.

Order reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6655

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE ALLEN WARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-94-70, CA-97-49-4)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Allen Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Ward, Nos. CR-94-70; CA-97-49-4 (E.D. Va.

May 30, 1997, Jan. 14, Feb. 10, & Mar. 4, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
#### PEOPLE ex rel. SMITH v. WOODS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 31, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Albert E. Smith, against Arthur Woods, as Commissioner. F. J. Sullivan, of New York City, for relator. T. Farley, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Writ dismissed, and proceeding affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
PGI 245.103-73 Government property under

sustainment contracts.

(1) Sustainment contracts, including those for performance-based logistics, sustainment support,

contractor logistics support, life-cycle product support, and weapon systems product support (see 10

U.S.C. 4324(d)), may require the contractor to hold or manage Government inventory. In such cases,

regularly scheduled (typically, semiannually) inventory reporting from the contractor is required to

ensure that inventory levels meet program requirements and Government inventory in excess of

authorized amounts is identified. The requiring activity is responsible for providing the contracting

officer with reporting requirements for Government inventory. See the Data Item Description DIPSSS-80727A, Government Furnished Material (GFM) by National Stock Number, and the

instructions for completing the DD Form 1423 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for

inventory reporting requirements on sustainment contracts available at

http://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/site-pages/gfp-resources.

(2) During acquisition planning, pricing contracts, exercising options, and assessing past

performance, contracting officers should review the requiring activity’s assessment of the

information generated by the inventory reporting requirements.

(3) In some circumstances, under fixed-price sustainment contracts, contract deliverables consist of

non-hardware items, such as operational readiness rate goals or mean time between failures of a

system. In order to meet these deliverables, contractors are required to provide certain property

items to the Government. In such cases, the contract does not include specific delivery line items

requiring formal delivery of the property. By extension, the Government will not have title to the

property at the time the contractor provides the property. In such cases, title to the property passes

to the Government upon Government acceptance (as defined in FAR 46.101) of the items at the

destination stated in the contract. Contracting officers shall ensure that the contract—

(i) Clearly defines how and when acceptance will be performed; and

(ii) Includes applicable requirements for quality assurance, part marking, anti-counterfeiting, or

other requirement for the delivery of the property.

Parent topic: PGI 245.103 General.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32304]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 
(Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447)

AGENCY: Rio Grande National Forest, USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of New Fee Site--Fitton Guard Station, Off Cow Camp 
Cabin.

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

SUMMARY: The Rio Grande National Forest is proposing to charge a $25.00 
fee for the overnight rental of Fitton Guard Station and Off Cow Camp 
Cabin. These cabins have not been available for recreation use prior to 
this date. Rentals of other cabins on the Rio Grande National Forest 
have shown that people appreciate and enjoy the availability of 
historic rental cabins. Funds from the rental will be used for the 
continued operation and maintenance of rental cabins on the Rio Grande 
National Forest. This fee is only proposed and will be determined upon 
further analysis and public comment.

DATES: Send any comments about these fee proposals by June 15, 2011 so 
comments can be compiled and analyzed. Fitton Guard Station and Off Cow 
Camp Cabin will become available for recreation rental summer of 2011.

ADDRESSES: Dan S. Dallas, Forest Supervisor, Rio Grande National 
Forest, 18803 W. Highway 160, Monte Vista, CO 8114403.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Brigham, Natural Resource 
Specialist or Ronnie Day, Visitor Information Specialist at 719 657-
3321.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act 
(Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to 
publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new 
recreation fee areas are established.
    This new fee will be reviewed by the Colorado Recreation Resource 
Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.
    The Rio Grande National Forest currently has eight other cabin 
rentals. These rentals are often fully booked throughout their rental 
season. A business analysis of both Fitton Guard Station and Off Cow 
Camp Cabin has shown that people desire having this sort of recreation 
experience on the Rio Grande National Forest. A market analysis 
indicates that the $25.00 per night fee is both reasonable and 
acceptable for this sort of unique recreation experience.
    People wanting to rent either the Fitton Guard Station or Off Cow 
Camp Cabin will need to do so through the National Recreation 
Reservation Service, at http://www.reserveusa.com or by calling 1-877-
444-6777. The National Recreation Reservation Service charges a $9 fee 
for reservations.

    Dated: December 13, 2010.
Dan S. Dallas,
Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-32304 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
250000m.E

BATHYMETRIC MAP

ATLANTIC OCEAN
BALANUS SEAMOUNT

64°

4] 0000m.£,

=

‘4004

i
4

4420000m.N

4420000m.N,

4330000m.N.

———a

bo

4320000m.N,

ZHOOOOmE

Bathymetry compiled by the National Ocean Service (NOS) from Bathymetric Data other than
NOS hydrographic surveys. This is a facsimile reproduction of the bathymetric manuscript and
does not necessarily represent its final published form. This information is not intended for
navigational purposes.

Bathymetric Contour Interval: 50 meters to maximum depth.

Universal Transverse Mercator Grid, Zone 20; 10,000 meter ticks (---) are shown inside the
neatline.

Protraction, Diagram deta shown in subdued (screened) black was compiled by the Minerals
Management Service (MMS).

THIS MAP IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT for Federal leasing purposes; for such purposes
use the MMS Outer Cohtinental Shelf Officic! Protraction Diagrams.

Heavy line(s} indicate limits of these protraction diagrams.

EVALUATION OF BATHYMETRIC DATA

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Random racklnes ond Bathymetie Sureys dated 1909 to 1974 NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
‘The Bathymetric Data ranges in scale Irom 1:500,000 to

1:1,000,000 with a minimum line spacing of 3.0 ane a maximum
line spacing of 15,0 nautical miles. 1983
Date corrected for sound velocity according to Matthews’ Tables, 1939.

Produced at Washington, D.C.
for

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION
Scale 1:250,000
8 1

5 0 i) 15 20 Sfatute Miles
5 i} 5 10 15 20 25 30 Kilometers
— =
5 oO 5 10 15 Nautical Miles
—)

66°
40°

BATHYMETRIC DATA INDEX

39°

Bathymetric data from sources other than
NOS hydrographic surveys.

39°

66°

64>

4]0000m.E

I i
64°

BALANUS SEAMOUNT
NOS NJ 20-1 (OCS)

41°98" INDEX TO ADJOINING SHEETS 62°

aie
LYponia STEWART
Canyon
NR'19-12 | NK 20-10
=
&
BEAR BALANUS, é
SEAMOUNT | SEAMOUNT cS
Action NJ 20-1
MULLER
ND
38°!
68°

= NIT SIKL HO AMlud 40 3903 NOWISOd

+ FHITSIRL NO INIWd 40 3903 NOULISOS
§ 1108.200 Fixed-amount subaward. *Fixed-amount subaward* means a subaward: ( a ) That a recipient or subrecipient makes to another entity at the next lower tier; and
( b ) Under which the total amount to be paid to the other entity is based on performance and results, and not on the actual, allowable costs that entity incurs.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-04-298-CV

IN RE RON AKIN	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. In addition, the court vacates its September 28, 2004 order that stayed the effect of the Summons issued by the trial court. 

	Relator shall pay all costs incurred in this proceeding, for which let execution issue.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL B: HOLMAN, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 29, 2004
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2340

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Carlos Fuentez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: September 17, 1997

 Filed: September 22, 1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1991, Carlos Fuentez was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess

cocaine and distributing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and using

and carrying a firearm during a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

924(c); Fuentez was sentenced to a total of 295 months’ imprisonment. Upon

Fuentez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, the district court vacated his firearm conviction 1

in light of Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501, 506 (1995) (defining “use” prong of
-2-

§ 924(c)(1)). The court then resentenced Fuentez to 295 months’ imprisonment and

five years’ supervised release, imposing a 2-level enhancement for possession of a

firearm, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (add 2 levels if firearm

involved).

Fuentez appeals, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to resentence

him on the unchallenged drug conviction; that the “sentencing package” concept does

not apply to section 2255 proceedings; and that application of the firearm-possession

enhancement violates double jeopardy and due process. Because Fuentez’s arguments

are foreclosed by United States v. Harrison, 113 F.3d 135, 137-38 (8th Cir. 1997), the

judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 708.23 Time to issue a report of investigation. ( a ) If the complaint is not dismissed prior to the completion of the investigation, the investigator will complete the investigation and issue a report of investigation by the 60th day after the complaint is received by the Office of Hearings and Appeals, unless the OHA Director, for good cause, extends the investigation for no more than 30 days. If a case is referred for dismissal by an investigator, the time to issue the report of investigation stops running on the day of referral and, if the Administrative Judge decides against dismissal, begins to run again on the day after the Administrative Judge's decision issues.
( b ) The investigator will provide copies of the report of investigation to the parties. The investigation will not be reopened after the report of investigation is issued.
#### Earl Seward et al., Respondents, v 195 Broadway Corp., Defendant-Appellant, and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent. Anchor Contracting Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent; Franklin Allen Window Cleaning Co., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on October 29, 1979, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered on the issue of damages only, without costs and without disbursements, unless plaintiff, Earl Seward, within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order herein, with notice of entry, serves and files in the office of the clerk of the trial court a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in his favor to $200,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If plaintiff so stipulates, the judgment, as so amended and reduced, is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. After review of the record, the damages appear to us to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Bloom and Carro, JJ..