alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31979R1117 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31979R1117

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1117/79 of 6 June 1979 specifying the products in the seeds sector to be subject to the system of import licences **

*
Official Journal L 139 , 07/06/1979 P. 0011 - 0011 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 11 P. 0008 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 25 P. 0119 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 11 P. 0008 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 16 P. 0126 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 16 P. 0126 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1117/79 of 6 June 1979 specifying the products in the seeds sector to be subject to the system of import licences

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 of 26 October 1971 on the common organization of the market in seeds (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 234/79 (2), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 4 (2) thereof,

Whereas, given the situation of the market for hybrid maize for sowing, it is necessary to be able to monitor continuously trade patterns with third countries;

Whereas, in the case of hybrid maize for sowing, use should be made of the power under Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 to make imports of seeds subject to the production of an import licence, in order that the foreseeable volume of imports may be known in good time, so that any measures which the development of the market might require may be taken;

Whereas the Management Committee for Seeds has not delivered an opinion within the time limit laid down by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following products shall be subject to the system of import licences provided for in Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71: >PIC FILE= "T0015914">

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1979.

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

Done at Brussels, 6 June 1979.

For the Commission

Finn GUNDELACH

Vice-President (1)OJ No L 246, 5.11.1971, p. 1. (2)OJ No L 34, 9.2.1979, p. 2.
#### Hector Marzan, Appellant, v Marihoye Persaud et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[817 NYS2d 297]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated November 5, 2004, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendants Marihoye Persaud and Vaird N. Appalsammy and that branch of the cross motion of the defendant City of New York which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he fell from a bicycle he was riding on a public sidewalk. The defendants Marihoye Persaud, Vaird N. Appalsammy, and City of New York established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing, through the plaintiffs deposition testimony, that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the plaintiff’s attempt to avoid hitting a young girl who stepped onto the sidewalk in front of him.

More than five months after being provided with a copy of his *653deposition testimony, the plaintiff submitted a correction sheet adding, after a reference in his testimony to the uneven condition of the sidewalk, a statement that such condition “caused me to fall.” The plaintiff made no showing of good cause for submitting the correction sheet more than three months after the expiration of the 60-day period for making corrections to a deposition *(see*CPLR 2004, 3116 [a]; *Zamir v Hilton Hotels Corp.,*304 AD2d 493 [2003]; *Riley v ISS Intl. Serv. Sys.,*284 AD2d 320 [2001]). Moreover, the sole “reason for correction” stated on the correction sheet was: “I meant to say that.” That conclusory statement was insufficient to explain such a significant, substantive amendment of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony *(see Zamir v Hilton Hotels Corp., supra; Schachat v Bell Atl. Corp.,*282 AD2d 329 [2001]; *Marine Trust Co. of Western N.Y. v Collins,*19 AD2d 857 [1963]). The plaintiffs assertion in his opposition papers that the correction was necessitated by confusion in the translation of his testimony by an interpreter is not supported by the record *(see Rodriguez v Jones,*227 AD2d 220 [1996]). Thus, the plaintiffs correction sheet failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the allegedly defective condition of the sidewalk was a proximate cause of the accident.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the motion and the cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Krausman and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Raphael J. Sanchez, Appellant, v. Stephen Papontas et al., Constituting the Board of Assessors of the Town of Kent, Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to compel the respondent Board of Assessors to allow petitioner to examine, inspect and copy certain records, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated November 21, 1968, which dismissed the petition. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and petition granted to the extent indicated herein. The Boird of Supervisors of Putnam County authorized the Cleminshaw Company to reappraise the real property in Putnam County for the use of the Assessors. By this proceeding, petitioner seeks to compel the respondent Board of Assessors to allow the inspection of the separate, pencil-marked data cards, which are one of the guides used in the preparation of the final assessment roll. The forms for these cards were apparently prepared by the Cleminshaw Company and their employees were involved in the acquisition of the data which appears on the cards. The issue before us is whether these cards are available for inspection and copying by virtue of the provisions of section 51 of the General Municipal Law. We are of the opinion that they are. The respondent board keeps all of the cards on hand and encourages individual property owners to appear and review the correctness of the information appearing on their cards *949with, a representative of the Cleminshaw Company or an Assessor. These cards are more than a work product. They were prepared at the direction of the Board of Supervisors and are kept on hand for review and correction. In this situation, the public policy of the State would appear to favor disclosure (cf. *Matter of Egan*v. *Board of Water Supply,*205 N. Y. 147, 157-158; *Matter of North*v. *Foley,*238 App. Div. 731, 734-735). The exposure of these cards would not be dangerous to the public interest or detrimental to its welfare. No personal or private interests are necessarily involved (cf. *Matter of New York Post Corp.*v. *Moses,*12 A D 2d 243, 253-254, revd. on other grounds, 10 N Y 2d 199; *Matter of Sears Roebuck & Co.*v. *Hoyt,*202 Misc. 43). The inspection of these cards is to be permitted pursuant to such reasonable regulations as may be prescribed by the respondent board. The board is directed to notify petitioner of the terms of such regulations within 30 days of the date hereof. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
§ 950.27 Conditions for payment of covered costs. ( a ) *General.* The Department shall pay the covered costs associated with a Standby Support Contract in accordance with the Claim Determination issued by the Claims Administrator under § 950.24 or the Final Claim Determination under § 950.34, provided that: ( 1 ) Neither the sponsor's claim for covered costs nor any other document submitted to support the underlying claim is fraudulent, collusive, made in bad faith, dishonest or otherwise designed to circumvent the purposes of the Act and regulations;
( 2 ) The losses submitted for payment are within the scope of coverage issued by the Department under the terms and conditions of the Standby Support Contract as specified in subpart B of this part; and
( 3 ) The procedures specified in this subpart have been followed and all conditions for payment have been met.
( b ) *Adjustments to Payments.* In the event of fraud or miscalculation, the Department may subsequently adjust, including an adjustment obligating the sponsor to repay any payment made under paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Suspension of payment for covered costs.* If the Department paid or is paying covered costs under paragraph (a) of this section, and subsequently makes a determination that a sponsor has failed to meet any of the requirements for payment specified in paragraph (a) of this section for a particular covered cost, the Department may suspend payment of covered costs pending investigation and audit of the sponsor's covered costs.
( d ) *Amount payable.* The Department's share of compensation for the initial two reactors is 100 percent of the covered costs of covered delay but not more than the coverage in the contract or $500 million per contract, whichever is less; and for the subsequent four reactors, not more than 50 percent of the covered costs of the covered delay but not more than the coverage in the contract or $250 million per contract, whichever is less. The Department's share of compensation for the subsequent four reactors is further limited in that the payment is for covered costs of a covered delay that occurs after the initial 180-day period of covered delay.
NO. 07-07-0021-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

FEBRUARY 27, 2007

______________________________

In the Matter of the Marriage of 

MARY CECELIA GARZA and RAYMOND M. GARZA

_________________________________

FROM THE 320th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 73,011-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING

________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

___________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant Raymond M. Garza filed a notice of appeal on January 22, 2007.

However, he did not pay the $125 filing fee required from appellants under Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 5. Nor did he file an affidavit of indigence per Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 20.1. By letter from this Court dated February 7, 2007, we informed appellant

that “the filing fee in the amount of $125.00 has not been paid, and appellant is directed

this fee must be received by the Court no later than Tuesday, February 20, 2007. . . .

Failure to comply with the Court’s directive will result in dismissal of the appeal per Rules

37.3(b) and 42.3(b) and (c).” TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); see Holt v. F. F. Enterprises, 990

S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d). The deadline lapsed, and the fee was

not received. 
2

Because appellant failed to pay the requisite filing fee as directed by the court, we

dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). 

 

Per Curiam
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 6 ,

2011

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00826

- CR NO. 14

- 11

- 00827

- CR

____________ IN RE VICTOR J. TUGWELL , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 179th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1219410 & 1219411



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On September 22
, 2011 , relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.
See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. R elator complains that respondent, the Honorable Randy Roll
, presiding judge of the 179 th District Court of
Harris County, denied his motion to dismiss his attorney and appoint new counsel to represent him in his pending cases for intoxication manslaughter and intoxication assault.

To be entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal case , a relator must show that he has no adequat e remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).2

Relator has not provided this court with a copy of the motion about which he complains . It is relator’s burden to provide this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W .2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a). Moreover, the act that relator seeks to compel is not a ministerial act.
See King v. State , 29 S.W.3d 556, 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) ( stating that a trial court has
d is c ret ion t o determine whether an attorney should be allowed to withdraw ).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
S-148

7 COR A ANDERSO N BUILDIN G TTTfk' V XT f " D A T ' COMMITTEES : P.O
. BO X 3001 4 J U J J X JNHilV^ X GREA T LAKE S AN D ENVIRONMEN T (VC ) LANSING , M l -iSSOS-rs u AGRICULTUR E TOLL-FREE : (866

) 779-110 8 108T H DISTRIC T COMMERC E PHONE : (517 ) 373-015 6 TRANSPORTATIO N FAX . (517 ) 373-937 0 MICHIGA N HOUS E O F REPRESENTATIVE S E-MAIL : judynerat@house.mi.go v WEB : house.mi.gov/jnera t Augus t 24 , 201 0 Susan Kurlan d Actin g Assistan t

Secretary for

Aviatio n and Internationa l Affair s Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s SthFloor , Roo mW86-31 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenu e S E Washington , D C 2059 0 T o Who mI

t May Concern , I hav e bee n advise d that

th e Delt aCounty Airport i n Escanaba , Michigan , ha s applie d fo r gran t fundin g throug h th e Smal l Communit y Developmen t Program(Docke t

OS T 2010-0124) . Th e Delt aCounty Airport

i s in my legislativ e distric t an d I a mfiilly awar e o f

th e importan t

service s i

t provide s t o th e resident s and busines s community i n thi s rural area . Th e gran t propose d emphasize s th e nee d fo r amarketin g pla

n i n orde r to full y maximiz e are a fligh t service . Ther e hav e bee n numerou s airlin e servic e charges , cause d b y servic e cessatio n an d mergers , whic h requir e area-wid e clarification . Du e t o thes e numerou s charges , i t i s critica l tha t th e publi c becom e full

y knowledgeabl e abou t

th e statu s an d opportunity fo r flight servic e i n thei r local area . Needles s t o say , I fully support and endors e th e Delt aCounty Airport gran t proposa l and encourag e your

consideratio n an d approval . Than k yo u i n advance , and pleas e fee l free to contac t m e shoul d you hav e an y question s o r concerns . C 3 i : ^ C " ^

— H 1
> O f v ) c n y=:lc-
. 

## M^' ^
rri^ m 

# ^S ^

G O

Sincerely , JudyNera t

. Stat e Representative , 108t h Distric t
§ 1108.150 Delinquent debt. *Delinquent debt* means a debt: ( a ) That the debtor fails to pay by the date specified in the initial written notice from the agency owed the debt, normally within 30 calendar days, unless the debtor makes satisfactory payment arrangements with the agency by that date; and
( b ) With respect to which the debtor has elected not to exercise any available appeals or has exhausted all agency appeal processes.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0198]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Premarket Notification” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Daniel Gittleson, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-5156, e-mail:                         *Daniel.Gittleson@fda.hhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of August 11, 2010 (75 FR 48696), the Agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0120. The approval expires on December 31, 2013. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*

Dated: December 21, 2010.

Leslie Kux,

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-32508 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
227 So.2d 595

#### Dianne RIDGE, Aaron Prescott v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. et al.

No. 50135.

Nov. 12, 1969.

In re: Dianne Ridge and Aaron Prescott applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 225 So.2d 704; 225 So.2d 707.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 4 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       January 4, 2005.
    Resolved, That the Clerk be instructed to inform the President of the United 
States that the House of Representatives has elected J. Dennis Hastert, a 
Representative from the State of Illinois, Speaker; and Jeffrey J. Trandahl, a 
citizen of the State of South Dakota, Clerk of the House of Representatives of 
the One Hundred Ninth Congress.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

RUSSELL W. BURTON, Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

2012-7011

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Case No. 09-2873, Chief Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

S COTT J. P OPMA , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for claimant-appellant. With him on the brief were J.
M ICHAEL J AKES and R ONALD L. S MITH

.

E LIZABETH M. H OSFORD , Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. On the brief were S TUART F.
D ELERY , Acting Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E.
D AVIDSON , Director, M ARTIN F. H OCKEY
, J R ., Assistant Director, and T ARA K. H OGAN
, Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were D AVID J. B ARRANS , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and C HRISTA A. S HRIBER , Attorney, United States Department of Vetera ns Affairs, of Washington, DC.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM ( R ADER
, Chief Judge, L OURIE
, Circuit Judge
and D ANIEL
, Chief Judge 1 ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 4, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

_ Date Jan Horbaly Clerk

1 Honorable Wiley Daniel, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.
§ 820.41 Compliance order. The Secretary may issue to any person involved in a DOE nuclear activity a Compliance Order that: ( a ) Identifies a situation that violates, potentially violates, or otherwise is inconsistent with the Act, a Nuclear Statute, or a DOE Nuclear Safety Requirement;
( b ) Mandates a remedy or other action; and,
( c ) States the reasons for the remedy or other action.
§ 1.105 Organization and subtitle content. ( a ) This title is organized into two subtitles.
( b ) The OMB guidance described in § 1.100(a) is published in subtitle A. Publication of the OMB guidance in the CFR does not change its nature—it is guidance and not regulation.
( c ) Each Federal agency that publishes regulations implementing the OMB guidance has a chapter in subtitle B in which it issues those regulations. The Federal agency regulations in subtitle B differ in nature from the OMB guidance in subtitle A because the OMB guidance is not regulatory (Federal agency regulations in subtitle B may give regulatory effect to the OMB guidance, to the extent that the agency regulations require compliance with all or portions of the guidance).
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32638]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, January 6, 2011, 1 p.m. to 
January 6, 2011, 3:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on December 16, 2010, 75 FR 78719-78720.
    The meeting has been changed to an Internet Assisted Meeting (IAM). 
The meeting will be two days January 6, 2011, 9 a.m. to January 7, 
2011, 5 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: December 21, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-32638 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Freedom Enterprises, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. Hager Realty Corp. et al., Respondents.

Order entered August 12, 1966, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, and order entered January 14, 1969, denying reargument, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements. We conclude that the remedy of specific performance is unavailable to plaintiffs but we do not reach a determination on the merits as to whether the plaintiffs defaulted under the contract on the closing date of February 14, 1964, as claimed by defendants or whether a default, if it then occurred, was waived. Under the circumstances, the dismissal of the complaint shall not be *res judicata*as to the right, if any, of the plaintiffs to recover back the down payment made by them. Concur— Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.