alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2023240EN.01009701.xml

| 28.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/97

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 225/2020

of 11 December 2020

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2023/2027]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/736 of 2 June 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 as regards the list of air carriers banned from operating or subject to operational restrictions within the Union (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/736 of 2 June 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 as regards the list of air carriers banned from operating or subject to operational restrictions within the Union (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 66zab (Commission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006) in Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘- | 32020 R 0736: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/736 of 2 June 2020 (OJ L 172, 3.6.2020, p. 7).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘-

32020 R 0736: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/736 of 2 June 2020 (OJ L 172, 3.6.2020, p. 7).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/736 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 12 December 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 11 December 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 172, 3.6.2020, p. 7.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### In re FARLEY, State Excise Com’r.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 27, 1915.)

In the matter of the petition of William W. Farley, as Commissioner of Excise of the state of New York, for an order revoking and canceling liquor tax certificate No. 16126, issued to Peter Janhiewicz.

No opinion. Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation filed.
#### § 490.200 Purpose and scope.

This subpart sets forth rules implementing the provisions of Section 507(o) of the Act which requires, subject to some exemptions, that certain percentages of new light duty motor vehicles acquired for State fleets be alternative fueled vehicles.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SPECTRUM
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES (DEBTORS IN POSSESSION)
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,385
<SECURITIES>                                     4,786
<RECEIVABLES>                                      846
<ALLOWANCES>                                        80
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,391
<PP&E>                                             506
<DEPRECIATION>                                     274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,328
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            77
<OTHER-SE>                                         780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,970
<SALES>                                          1,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,459
<CGS>                                               41
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,450)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,450)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,450)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 712
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 712 appear at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023.

§ 712.20 Request for reconsideration or certification review hearing. ( a ) An individual who receives notification of the Manager's decision to revoke his or her HRP certification under § 712.19 may choose one of the following options: ( 1 ) Submit a written request to the Manager for reconsideration of the decision to revoke certification. The request must include the individual's response to the information that gave rise to the concern. The request must be sent by certified mail to the Manager within 20 working days after the individual received notice of the Manager's decision; or
( 2 ) Submit a written request to the Manager for a certification review hearing. The request for a hearing must be sent by certified mail to the Manager within 20 working days after the individual receives notice of the Manager's decision.
( b ) If an individual requests reconsideration by the Manager but not a certification review hearing, the Manager must, within 20 working days after receipt of the individual's request, send by certified mail (return receipt requested) a final agency decision to the individual.
( c ) If an individual requests a certification review hearing, the Manager must forward the request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
( d ) If an individual takes no action within 20 working days after receipt of the Manager's decision, the Manager's decision will become a final agency decision.
§ 719.41 How does the Department determine whether fees are reasonable? In determining whether fees or rates charged by retained legal counsel are reasonable, the Department may consider among other things: ( a ) Whether the lowest reasonably achievable fees or rates (including any currently available or negotiable discounts) were obtained from retained legal counsel;
( b ) Whether lower rates from other firms providing comparable services, at appropriate competency and experience levels, were available;
( c ) Whether alternative rate structures such as flat, contingent, and other innovative proposals, were considered; and
( d ) The complexity of the legal matter and the expertise of the law firm in this area.
#### § 840.3 Determination of extraordinary nuclear occurrence.

If the DOE determines that both of the criteria set forth in § 840.4 and § 840.5 have been met, it will make the determination that there has been an extraordinary nuclear occurrence. If the DOE publishes a notice in the Federal Register in accordance with § 840.2(a) and does not make a determination within 90 days thereafter that there has been an extraordinary nuclear occurrence, the alleged event will be deemed not to be an extraordinary nuclear occurrence. The time for the making of a determination may be extended by DOE by notice published in the Federal Register.
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 The Topps Company, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended November 25, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Arthur T.
Shorin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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, as amended; 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/ Arthur T. Shorin
                      Arthur T. ShorinChairman and Chief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  January 4, 2007

---
#### Fannie Fogel et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Donald Nelson, Appellant-Respondent, and Joseph Brown et al., Respondents.

Order, entered October 8, 1968, insofar as it sets aside jury verdict in favor of defendant Nelson and directs a new trial, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant-respondent, verdict reinstated, and judgment directed for said defendant. The plaintiffs, according to a statement of counsel on the argument, have withdrawn their appeal from the order insofar as it set aside the jury verdict against the defendants Brown. There is support in the evidence for the specific finding by the jury that negligence of the defendant Nelson was not a proximate cause of the vehicle accident and there was no inconsistency in the jury verdict. “ It is settled that a jury verdict in favor of defendant may not be set aside unless it plainly appears that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiff that the verdict for the defendant could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence. *(Areson*v. *Hempstead Bus Corp.,*14 A D 2d 790; *Musumeci*v. *Pillsbury Mills,*12 A D 2d 941, 942; *Holpp*v. *Carafa,*8 A D 2d 617; *Scheuerman*v. *Knapp Coal Co.,*238 App. Div. 874, 875; *Meyers*v. *Hines,*199 App. Div. 594, 595.) ” *(Marton*v. *McCasland,*16 A D 2d 781, 782.) The trial court, instead of setting aside the jury verdict, should have directed judgment for the defendant. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Eager, MeGivern, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
#### BREEZE, Respondent, v. STEWART et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 20, 1915.)

Action by Herbert Breeze against James C. Stewart and another.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1106.

MERRELL, J., not sitting.
§ 590.308 Admissions of facts. ( a ) At any time prior to the end of a trial-type hearing, or, if there is no trial-type hearing, prior to the issuance of a final opinion and order under § 590.404, any party, the Assistant Secretary, or the presiding official may serve on any party a written request for admission of the truth of any matters at issue in the proceeding that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact.
( b ) A matter shall be considered admitted and conclusively established for the purposes of any proceeding in which a request for admission is served unless, within fifteen (15) days of such time limit established by the Assistant Secretary or presiding official, the party to whom the request is directed answers or objects to the request. Any answer shall specifically admit or deny the matter, or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny, unless the answering party states that, after reasonable inquiry, the answering party has been unable to obtain sufficient information to admit or deny. If an objection is made, the answering party shall state the reasons for the objection.
( c ) If the Assistant Secretary or presiding official determines that an answer to a request for admission does not comply with the requirements of this section, the Assistant Secretary or presiding official may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.
( d ) A copy of all requests for admission and answers thereto shall be filed with FE in accordance with § 590.103. Copies of any documents referenced in the request shall be served with the request unless they are known to be in the possession of the other parties.
( e ) The Assistant Secretary or presiding official may limit the number of requests for admission of facts in order to expedite a proceeding through elimination of duplicative requests.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32385]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOD-2010-DARS-0180]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, 
the following proposal for collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 
26, 2011.
    Title, Associated Forms and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 244, Subcontracting Policies and 
Procedures; OMB Control Number 0704-0253.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 90.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 90.
    Average Burden per Response: 16 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 1,440 hours.
    Needs and Uses: Administrative contracting officers use this 
information in making decisions to grant, withhold, or withdraw 
purchasing system approval at the conclusion of a purchasing system 
review. Withdrawal of purchasing system approval would necessitate 
Government consent to individual subcontracts.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: November 30, 2010.
Morgan F. Park,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-32385 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
8.003 Use of other mandatory         sources.     (S-90) Procurement of audit readiness or audit sustainment services.         DCSO is responsible for acquiring audit readiness and/or audit sustainment services for             DLA organizations. No other procuring organization shall award a contract or place an             order on an existing contract for audit readiness and/or audit sustainment services for             a DLA organization without the written approval of the DCSO Director. In addition, no             DLA requirements owner shall submit a requirement for audit readiness and/or audit             sustainment services for a DLA organization to a non-DLA contracting organization (e.g.,             an order under the Economy Act, as provided under FAR 17.502-2) without the written             approval of the DCSO Director.         (S-91) DCSO is the single DLA procuring organization with authority to procure office             document devices and associated maintenance support (see 39.9001(b)).         (S-92) DCSO is the primary procuring organization responsible for acquiring information             technology (IT) services, supplies, equipment, training, and subscriptions for DLA (see             39.9001(c)).         (S-93) Procurement of training.         (1) Pursuant to Director, DLA Human Resources memorandum entitled,             “Centralizing Administration of Government Purchase Cards for Training Payment,” dated             June 30, 2014, DLA organizations shall submit all training requirements, regardless of             the training source or funding source, to DLA Human Resources Services, DLA Training             (DHRS-DT) for review, management, administration, and sourcing. If DHRS-DT determines             the training requirement is valid, DHRS-DT will then determine the best method to source             that training (e.g., LMS Online course, Resident Course with DLA trainers, DAU Course,             GPC, new contract, etc.).         (2) DCSO Columbus is the DLA Center of Excellence             for DLA Enterprise Training Services. If DHRS-DT determines a new contract is the best             method to satisfy the training requirement, DHRS-DT will work with the requiring             activity to prepare a requirements package and submit the request for contract support             to DCSO Columbus in coordination with the requiring activity, unless 8.003(S-93)(3) applies.         (3) DLA organizations shall not submit requirements for training             services to any procuring organization other than DCSO unless DHRS-DT determines in             writing that a non-DCSO procuring organization should provide the contracting support             and the DCSO Director approves the determination in writing. **Parent topic:** PART 8 – REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES
EX-35.4
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1086-120, 12th Floor
550 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334

Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc.
Bank of America Trust
One Bryant Park
New York, NY 10036
Attention: Leland F. Bunch


ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement
dated as of February 1, 2013, by and among Banc of America Merrill Lynch
Commercial Mortgage Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
as Master Servicer, Certificate Administrator, Certifiate Registrar,
Authenticating Agent and Custodian, NS Servicing II, LLC as Special Servicer,
Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank, National Association as
Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
2013-C8 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined
shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive
Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from
     January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"), and of
     its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under
     my supervision, and

2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
     respects throughout the Reporting Period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of
the 7th day of March 2014.


/s/ Daniel Bober
Daniel Bober
Executive Vice President
Wells Fargo Bank


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(logo) Together we'll go far
### U.S. Geological SurveyOpen-File Report 97-98

# Quaternary geology of Contra Costa County, and surrounding parts ofAlameda, Marin, Sonoma, Solano, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties,California:  A digital database

### By: E.J. Helley and R.W. Graymer

### 1997

|thumbnail of map
|----------------

View README file: cc_q1.ReadMe.txt (24 KB)

View the geologic explanation as a text file: ccqgeo.txt (24 KB)

Download the geologic explanation as a PostScript plot file: ccqgeo.ps (40 KB)

Download the geologic explanation as a PDF file: ccqgeo.pdf (32 KB)

Download the database package in ARC/INFO 7.x uncompressed export formatalong with supporting materials in a compressed UNIX tar file: cc_q1.tar.Z (16.5 MB, 75.4 MB when uncompressed)

Download three Postscript plottable files containing images of the geologic maps and base maps at a scale of 1:100,000, explanation sheet,and explanatory text in a compressed UNIX tar file: ccqps.tar.Z (9.5 MB compressed download file, 32 MB when uncompressed)

Download the explanation sheet as a PDF file: ccqexpl.pdf (168 KB)

View the geologic map sheet as a JPEG file (base-map removed): ccqmap.jpg (240 KB)

Download the geologic map sheet as a PDF file: ccqmap.pdf (~36" x 29"; 7.1 MB)

Please send comments and suggestions to Russ Graymer

---

| | For more information on the geologyof the San Francisco Bay region:Visit the sfgeo website
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 27, 2014

t0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

149054

KAYE LANDERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 149054

COA: 318367

MCAC: 13-000013

GRAND BLANC REHABILITATION AND

NURSING CENTER and PENNSYLVANIA

MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

INSURANCE,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 25, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.