alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-1 CO2 and CH4 Flux Data Over the SSA-OBS SiteThe BOREAS TE-1 team collected various data to characterize the soil-plant systems in the BOREAS SSA. Particular emphasis was placed on nutrient biochemistry, the stores and transfers of organic carbon, and how the characteristics were related to measured methane fluxes. The overall transect in the Prince Albert National Park (Saskatchewan, Canada) included the major plant communities and related soils that occurred in that section of the boreal forest. Soil physical, chemical, and biological measurements along the transect were used to characterize the static environment, which allowed them to be related to methane fluxes. Chamber techniques were used to provide a measure of methane production/uptake. Chamber measurements coupled with flask sampling were used to determine the seasonality of methane fluxes. This particular data set contains carbon dioxide and methane flux values from the SSA-OBS site. The data were collected from 09-Jun to 04-Sep-1994. The data are stored in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010004253Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsAnderson, Darwin*(Saskatchewan Univ. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada)*Papagno, Andrea*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Hall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Newcomer, Jeffrey A.*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberRept-2000-03136-0/VOL127NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL127NAS 1.15:209891/VOL127Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010004253.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
**Connecticut**

**No Active Borrowers in Connecticut**
Return to state directory
# EUR-Lex - 31972R2468 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31972R2468

**Regulation (EEC) No 2468/72 of the Commission of 24 November 1972 determining collection, processing and storage centres for intervention on the market in raw tobacco /* Unofficial translation */ **

*
Official Journal L 267 , 28/11/1972 P. 0001 - 0003 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 5 P. 0037 Danish special edition: Series III Chapter 1966-1972 P. 0107 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 5 P. 0037 English special edition: Series III Chapter 1966-1972 P. 0114 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 8 P. 0191 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 6 P. 0140 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 6 P. 0140 *

REGULATION (EEC) No 2468/72 OF THE COMMISSION of 24 November 1972 determining collection, processing and storage centres for intervention on the market in raw tobacco

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community;

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1467/701 of 20 July 1970 fixing certain general rules governing intervention on the market in raw tobacco and in particular Article 1 thereof;

Whereas Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1467/70 provides for the determination of intervention centres called "collection centres" and "processing and storage centres";

Whereas collection centres must be situated in areas where production of leaf tobacco is substantial and must offer temporary warehousing capacity for such tobacco;

Whereas processing and storage centres must offer first processing and market preparation plants for leaf tobacco, and storage and preservation capacity for tobacco which has undergone first processing and market preparation;

Whereas the intervention centres listed in the Annex to this Regulation have been selected in such a way as to satisfy all the above conditions;

Whereas, because of the quantities of baled tobacco likely to be offered for intervention in Italy, the intervention agency in that Member State should be free to use the warehousing facilities available at each processing and storage centre as and when required ; whereas such warehouses may be concentrated in a limited regional area ; whereas it is therefore desirable that the number of warehouses available at each processing and storage centre in Italy should be indicated;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the Opinion of the Management Committee for Tobacco,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The collection centres and the processing and storage centres referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1467/70 shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

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, 24 November 1972.

For the Commission,

The President,

S.L. MANSHOLT 1 OJ No L 164, 27.7.1970, p. 32.

ANNEX

>PIC FILE= "T0050870""PIC FILE= "T0050871">
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rommey White, Appellant.

Conviction of defendant, upon plea of guilty, of crime of attempted grand larceny in third degree, reversed, on the law, and vacated, his plea of guilty vacated and set aside, indictments No. 548 of 1968 and 1327 of 1968 reinstated, and matter remanded for proper proceedings under such indictments. The reversal and remand are required because it does not appear that there was due compliance with the procedures required by statute for the determination as to whether the defendant, age 16 at the time, was entitled to youthful offender treatment as recommended by the Grand Jury in connection *744with indictment No. 548 charging him with robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree. (See Code Grim. Pro., §§ 913-e, 913-g.) The defendant’s plea of guilty of attempted grand larceny in the third degree was entered on arraignment under said indictment No. 548 and the plea was taken to cover indictment No. 1327 also charging robbery and larceny. The defendant contends, in the brief submitted on this appeal, that notwithstanding the due recommendation for youthful offender treatment in connection with indictment No. 548, the court *“*(A) failed to conduct the examinations, investigation, and questioning required by section 913-g preceding a determination of eligibility or ineligibility for youthful offender treatment; and (B) failed, in violation of due process, to make findings of fact on which the denial was based”, citing *People*v. *Syhes*(22 N V 2d 159, 164) and *People*v. *Towler*(30 A D 2d 876). Although the People claim that a youthful offender conference was duly held and that the defendant was denied youthful offender treatment, there is no proper record of any proceedings held pursuant to the youthful offender recommendation of the Grand Jury nor of any findings or determination in connection therewith. The defendant, before being required to plead to indictment No. 548, was entitled to the benefit of the procedures required by section 913-g of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to a determination of whether he was eligible for youthful offender treatment. Upon the remand, the court shall take such proceedings as may be proper and necessary pursuant to the youthful offender recommendation and, following such proceedings, the District Attorney and court shall proceed as required by law to dispose of the aforesaid indictments Nos. 548 and 1327. Concur—Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.
EX-35.5
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage, Inc.
Bank of America Tower
One Bryant Park
New York, New York 10036


RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Bank Of America Merrill
    Lynch Trust 2013-C8, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
    2013-C8

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2013 (the
"Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows
as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;
and

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.


March 10, 2014


/s/ Brian Smith
BRIAN SMITH
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
## MEMORANDUM

**DATE:** 11/21 /14 **FROM:** Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR– 2013 - 0602 **SUBJECT:** Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with Florida Department of Environmental

Protection **SUMMARY :**  

### Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on August 20 , 2014 

### . The Clea n Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was p roposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES :**  **EPA** Beverly Banister/EPA R4 Gregg Worley/EPA R4 Jeaneanne Gettle/EPA R4 Ken Mitchell/EPA R4 Keith Goff/EPA R4 Todd Rinck/EPA R4 EPA OAR OAQPS and OAP Staff **External Stakeholders** Paula Cobb/Florida DEP Other DEP staff **ATTACHMENT Advance Questions for Discussion of the Clean Power**  **Plan wit h**  **the Florida DEP**  **on 8 /**  **20 /14** 

1. Rate to mass goal. Can you provide more insight into how this works (e.g., how to calculate the “business as usual” case)? 2. IPM Modeling. Various questions about the modeling runs. For example, are all the files on the website? What were the underlying NEEDS (and other) data used in the IPM modeling? (This issue can be followed
- up by a staff
- to - staff in
- depth discussion.) 3. Non - affected units. How can states include such units toward showing compliance (or can they )? How do you incorporate non - affected units into the state plan if they only become affected after the State Plan is submitted? Would such units affect the state’s goal? 4. Need more information on developing emissions projections (both for compliance and for developing rate
-to - mass calculations). 5. When mistakes are found in state
- specific data used to calculate the goal, how should that information be communicated to EPA (in addition to being submitted to the docket)? 6. “Capacity”. The proposal seems to u se multiple approaches to establishing “capacity” for units in a state (i.e., nameplate vs other types of capacity). Was that intentional and, if so, why? 7. Dispatch to NGCC. Did EPA consider limitations in infrastructure when establishing this number for goal setting? For example, did EPA consider issues such as gas transport limitations and limitations in grid transmission? 8. Renewable Energy. Can a state include alternate energy sources in compliance when the alternative energy may not be considered re newable energy (e.g., can you count waste
- to energy projects toward compliance)? Also, how would biomass be treated? 9. What constraints are there in using nuclear up
- rates in showing compliance? For example, if an up - rate occurred in 2012, can that count towards showing compliance?
###### Editorial Note on Part 725

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 725 appear at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023.

#### § 725.31 Violations.

An injunction or other court order may be obtained prohibiting any violation of any provision of the Act or any regulation or order issued thereunder. Any person who willfully violates any provision of the Act or any regulation or order issued thereunder may be guilty of a crime and, upon conviction, may be punished by fine or imprisonment or both, as provided by law.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32643]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ11-5-000]


City of Riverside, California; Notice of Filing

December 21, 2010.
    Take notice that on December 13, 2010, the City of Riverside, 
California submitted its annual revision to its Transmission Revenue 
Balancing Account Adjustment and a related modification to Appendix I 
of its Transmission Owner Tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aceae9feefe3c2c0c5c2c9ffd9dcdcc3ded8eccac9decf82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="15535047565a7b797c7b70466065657a676155737067763b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 3, 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32643 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# EUR-Lex - 31989D0276 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989D0276

**89/276/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Ireland (Only the English text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 108 , 19/04/1989 P. 0031 - 0031 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Ireland (Only the English text is authentic) (89/276/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by letter of 9 November 1988, Ireland sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan, as modified, has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1 The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by Ireland is hereby approved.

Article 2 Ireland shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3 This Decision is addressed to Ireland.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 1989.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
#### § 71.13 Exemption of physicians.

Any physician licensed by a State to dispense drugs in the practice of medicine is exempt from § 71.5 with respect to transport by the physician of licensed material for use in the practice of medicine. However, any physician operating under this exemption must be licensed under 10 CFR part 35 or the equivalent Agreement State regulations.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00326-CR

Oscar Davila Rodriguez

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR-0084-06-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 26, 2022
#### NOWAKOWSKI, Respondent, v. NEW YORK & N. S. TRACTION CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 26, 1914.)

Action by John Nowakowski against the New York & North Shore Traction Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and plaintiff’s complaint dismissed, with costs of the appeal and of the action, on authority of Stanislaus Nowakowski v. New York & North Shore Traction Company, 148 N. Y. Supp. 456, decided herewith. See, also, 158 App. Div. 949, 143 N. Y. Supp. 1133.
§ 903.16 Public comment forums. ( a ) One or more public comment forums shall be held for major rate adjustments, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this section, and may be held for minor rate adjustments, to provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentation of views, data, and arguments regarding the Proposed Rates. The number, dates, and locations of such forums will be determined by the Administrator in accordance with the anticipated or demonstrated interest in the Proposed Rates. Notice shall be given at least 30 days in advance of the first public comment forum at each location and shall include the purpose, date, time, place, and other information relative to the forum, as well as the locations where pertinent documents are available for examination and/or copying.
( b ) The Administrator shall designate a forum chairperson. At the forum, PMA representatives may question those persons making oral statements and comments. The chairperson shall have discretion to establish the sequence of, and the time limits for, oral presentations and to determine if the comments are relevant and noncumulative. Forum proceedings shall be transcribed. Copies of all documents introduced shall be available at a designated location for inspection, and copies shall be furnished on request for which the Administrator may assess a fee. Copies of the transcript may be obtained from the transcribing service.
( c ) No public comment forum need be held for major rate adjustments if, after the Administrator has given notice of a scheduled forum, no person indicates in writing by a prescribed date an intent to appear at such public forum.
228 So.2d 312

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Darrel RAYMOND, James Corsey, A. J. Meyers.

No. 50233.

Nov. 25, 1969.

In re: Darrel Raymond, James Corsey and A. J. Meyers applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

The application is denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, Justice,

is of the opinion that upon the allegations of the application and the return of the court, which fails to negate them, a sufficient showing is made for the granting of the writs. Relators applied for a preliminary examination on or before October 16, 1969, and although an order for the examination was signed by the judge, it was left undated. On October 31 a hearing was fixed for November 10. During the grand jury session of November 3 and before the date set for the hearing, an indictment was returned.

C.Cr.P. Art. 292 provides in the first paragraph: “Before the finding of an indictment or the filing of an information the court, on request of the state or of the defendant, *shall immediately*order a preliminary examination in felony cases.” The second paragraph of that article provides that after indictment or information the order is discretionary. To hold the request for preliminary examination in abeyance for almost a month, as the judge did here, was a palpable abuse of the mandatory provision. His denial of a motion for a preliminary examination after indictment under these circumstances constitutes an abuse of discretion. The application before us reflects what may not but could well be a design to contravene positive law and deny relators’ rights. I believe that these particular relators are entitled to a preliminary examination although its conduct and scope may be limited under C.Cr.P. Art. 296. I respectfully dissent from the refusal to grant the writs.
§ 60.42 Conditions of license. ( a ) A license issued pursuant to this part shall include such conditions, including license specifications, as the Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health and safety of the public, the common defense and security, and environmental values.
( b ) Whether stated therein or not, the following shall be deemed conditions in every license issued: ( 1 ) The license shall be subject to revocation, suspension, modification, or amendment for cause as provided by the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations.
( 2 ) The DOE shall at any time while the license is in effect, upon written request of the Commission, submit written statements to enable the Commission to determine whether or not the license should be modified, suspended or revoked.
( 3 ) The license shall be subject to the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act now or hereafter in effect and to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission. The terms and conditions of the license shall be subject to amendment, revision, or modification, by reason of amendments to or by reason of rules, regulations, and orders issued in accordance with the terms of the Atomic Energy Act.
( c ) Each license shall be deemed to contain the provisions set forth in Section 183 b-d, inclusive, of the Atomic Energy Act, whether or not these provisions are expressly set forth in the license.
( d ) The licensee (Department of Energy) shall ensure that Safeguards Information is protected against unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the requirements in § 73.21 and the requirements in § 73.22 or § 73.23 of this chapter, as applicable. The licensee (Department of Energy) shall ensure that classified information is protected in accordance with the requirements of parts 25 and 95 of this chapter, as applicable.
[46 FR 13980, Feb. 25, 1981, as amended at 73 FR 63571, Oct. 24, 2008]