alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 9
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 9 appear at 82 FR 52825, Nov. 15, 2017.

§ 9.105 Commission procedures. ( a ) Action under § 9.104 shall be taken only when a majority of the entire membership of the Commission votes to take such action. A separate vote of the Commissioners shall be taken with respect to each Commission meeting a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public pursuant to § 9.104, or which respect to any information which is proposed to be withheld under § 9.105(c). A single vote may be taken with respect to a series of meetings, a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public, or with respect to any information concerning such series of meetings, so long as each meeting in such series involves the same particular matters and is scheduled to be held no more than thirty days after the initial meeting in such series. The vote of each Commissioner participating in such vote shall be recorded and no proxies shall be allowed.
( b ) Within one day of any vote taken pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, § 9.106(a), or § 9.108(c), the Secretary shall make publicly available at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov ,* a written copy of such vote reflecting the vote of each member on the question. If a portion of a meeting is to be closed to the public, the Secretary shall, within one day of the vote taken pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section or § 9.106(a), make publicly available at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov ,* a full written explanation of its action closing the portion together with a list of all persons expected to attend the meeting and their affiliation.
( c ) The notices and lists required by paragraph (b) of this section to be made public may be withheld from the public to the extent that the Commission determines that such information itself would be protected against disclosure by § 9.104(a). Any such determination shall be made independently of the Commission's determination pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section to close a meeting, but in accordance with the procedure of that subsection. Any such determination, including a written explanation for the action and the specific provision or provisions of § 9.104(a) relied upon, must be made publicly available to the extent permitted by the circumstances.
[42 FR 12877, Mar. 7, 1977, as amended at 64 FR 48951, Sept. 9, 1999]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000812076
<NAME>                        TOPPS
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 May-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Aug-26-2000

<CASH>                                         140,249
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,579
<INVENTORY>                                     18,186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,886
<PP&E>                                          17,058
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 273,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,493
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           483
<OTHER-SE>                                     178,318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   273,298
<SALES>                                        141,708
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               143,152
<CGS>                                           67,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,553
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,589
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,964
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,964
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68



</TABLE>
§ 62.14 Contents of a request for an extension of emergency access. A request for an extension of emergency access must include: ( a ) Updates of the information required in §§ 62.12 and 62.13; and
( b ) Documentation that the generator of the low-level radioactive waste granted emergency access and the State in which the low-level radioactive waste was generated have diligently, though unsuccessfully, acted during the period of the initial grant to eliminate the need for emergency access. Documentation must include: ( 1 ) An identification of additional alternatives that have been evaluated during the period of the initial grant, and
( 2 ) A discussion of any reevaluation of previously considered alternatives, including verification of continued attempts to gain access to a disposal facility by voluntary agreement.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81644-81645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32435]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Civil Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Civil Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure will hold a 
two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not 
participation.

DATES: April 4-5, 2011. Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESS:  The University of Texas School of Law, 727 East Dean Keeton 
Street, Austin, TX 78705.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter G. McCabe, Secretary Rules

[[Page 81645]]

Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: December 21, 2010.
Peter G. McCabe,
Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-32435 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
# EUR-Lex - 31992D0086 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992D0086

**92/86/EEC: Commission Decision of 18 December 1991 on certain adaptations of measures covered by Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic (Only the German text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 032 , 08/02/1992 P. 0029 - 0029 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 18 December 1991 on certain adaptations of measures covered by Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic (Only the German text is authentic) (92/86/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3571/90 of 4 December 1990 introducing various measures concerning the implementation of the common fisheries policy in the former German Democratic Republic (1), and in particular Article 4 (2) thereof,

Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3944/90 of 20 December 1990 (3) requires in its

Article 3

that Member States shall forward to the Commission a multiannual guidance programme concerning the fishing fleet;

Whereas the Commission adopted by Decision 88/139/EEC (4) a multiannual guidance programme for the German fishing fleet (1987 to 1991), as last amended by Decision (91/540/EEC) (5);

Whereas the adjustment of capacity is one of the major measures to achieve the objectives of the amendment for the fishing fleet of the former German Democratic Republic;

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3571/90 provides for a simplified procedure concerning the implementation of the common fisheries policy in the former German Democratic Republic in respecting the general tenor and the basic principles of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86;

Whereas the specific situation in that territory makes it particularly difficult to obtain information about the number of fishing days per vessel in the period prior to German unification;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

If the German authorities certify that such vessels were used exclusively for fishing activities during the qualifying calendar years in question, the fishing vessels from the former German Democratic Republic shall be eligible for reimbursement by the Community of premiums paid under Title VII of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 in respect of the adjustment of capacity, by way of derogation from the provisions of Articles 23 (1), 23 (2b) and 24 (2b).

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Done at Brussels, 18 December 1991. For the Commission

Manuel MARÍN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 353, 17. 12. 1990, p. 10. (2) OJ No L 376, 31. 12. 1986, p. 7. (3) OJ No L 380, 31. 12. 1990, p. 1. (4) OJ No L 67, 12. 3. 1988, p. 14. (5) OJ No L 294, 25. 10. 1991, p. 49.
#### State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Robert W. Aldershof, *Appellant.*

No. 47,956

Opinion filed December 13, 1975.

*Richard L. Hilton,*of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.

*Stephen Robison,*assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and *Curt T. Schneider,*attorney general, *Keith Sanborn,*district attorney, and *Stephen M. Joseph,*assistant district attorney, were with him on the brief for the appellee.

Miller, J.

Affirmed.
§ 1128.605 Content of FMS Article VI. ( a ) *Requirement.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions for awards under which there may be required cost sharing or matching must specify the criteria for determining allowability, methods for valuation, and requirements for documentation of cost sharing or matching.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must include as FMS Article VI the wording appendix F to this part provides, with any revisions to the wording that are authorized by §§ 1128.610 through 1128.635.
( 2 ) *Exception.* A DoD Component may reserve FMS Article VI of its general terms and conditions if it determines that there will be no cost sharing or matching required under any of the awards using those terms and conditions.
#### Anderson and Lind Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. Charles H. Albers, Receiver of Laramie State Bank of Chicago, Appellee.

Gen. No. 41,003.

opinion filed June 24, 1940.

Charles A. McDonald and Gustave B. Ehnborn, for appellant; Gustave B. Ehnborn, of counsel; Jetzinger & Quinn, for appellee.

Opinion by

Presiding Justice Matchett.

“Not to be published in full.”
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

          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 Greyhound Lines, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge:


1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 /s/ Craig R. Lentzsch
-------------------------------
Craig R.Lentzsch, President and Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2003

/s/ Jeffrey W. Sanders
------------------------------
Jeffrey W. Sanders, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7041
HOWARD PIERCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WILLIAM DAVIS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL MOORE, Director, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-680-3BC) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order denying Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JACK HYNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 441 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of April, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
San Luis Obispo County APCD 207-1 11/5/91

RULE 207. DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS

(Adopted 8/2/76; Revised 11/5/91)

In the event of denial of an Authority to Construct , Permit to Operate or Permit to Sell or Rent, the Air Pollution Control Officer shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons therefore. Service of this notification may be made in person or by mail, and such service may be proved by the written acknowledgment of the persons served or affidavit of the person making the service. The Air Pollution Control Officer shall not accept a further application unless the applicant has complied with the objections specified by the Air P ollution Control Officer as his reasons for denial of the Authority to Construct, the Permit to Operate or the Permit to Sell or Rent.
#### § 71.61 Special requirements for Type B packages containing more than 105A2.

A Type B package containing more than 105A2 must be designed so that its undamaged containment system can withstand an external water pressure of 2 MPa (290 psi) for a period of not less than 1 hour without collapse, buckling, or inleakage of water.

[69 FR 3795, Jan. 26, 2004]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,744
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                        83
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          38,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,441
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,411
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,431
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (73)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,932
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,932
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,932
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76
        

</TABLE>
225 So.2d 8

#### JIM-ROY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Inc. and Hub City Investments, Inc. v. James D. PARKERSON.

No. 49741.

March 13, 1969.

In re: James D. Parkerson applying for writs of certiorari and prohibition.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Carrol L. Spell, Judge of the 15th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Lafayette, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 8th day of October, 1969, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondents through their attorney shall show cause, in this court on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

It is further ordered that, in the meantime and until the further orders of this court all *519proceedings against the relator in said 15th Judicial District Court shall be stayed and suspended.

Writs granted with a stay order. 224 So.2d 539.
# EUR-Lex - 31986R1196 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31986R1196

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 1196/86 of 22 April 1986 on the conclusion of the Agreement for commercial, economic and development cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan **

*
Official Journal L 108 , 25/04/1986 P. 0001 - 0001 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 11 P. 0253 Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 11 P. 0253 *

*****

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1196/86

of 22 April 1986

on the conclusion of the Agreement for commercial, economic and development cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 113 and 235 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),

Whereas for the attainment of the objectives of the Community in the sphere of external economic relations the Agreement for commercial, economic and development cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan should be approved; whereas it appears that certain measures of economic cooperation envisaged in the Agreement exceed the powers of action provided for in the Treaty in the field of the common commercial policy, and whereas recourse should also be had to Article 235,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Agreement for commercial, economic and development cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Regulation.

Article 2

The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 10 of the Agreement (3).

Article 3

The Community shall be represented on the Joint Commission provided for in Article 8 of the Agreement by the Commission, assisted by representatives of the Member States.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of 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 Luxembourg, 22 April 1986.

For the Council

The President

H. van den BROEK

(1) OJ No C 81, 29. 3. 1985, p. 3.

(2) OJ No C 88, 14. 4. 1986.

(3) The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities by the General Secretariat of the Council.
ex10-61.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.61

     

    
      Third
Amendment

      to

      Employment
Agreement

      


      This
Third Amendment to Employment
Agreement (the “Third Amendment”), is being entered into effective
December 10, 2009 by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”) and Mr. Wayne Wetherell (the “Executive”).

                          

      Whereas,
the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of
September 27, 2005 and subsequently amended on September 27, 2008 and again on
April 6, 2009 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”);

      


      WHEREAS, the Executive
continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires
to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and

      


      WHEREAS, in consideration of
the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide
for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.

      


      NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants contained in the Employment Agreement, the parties do hereby
agree that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

      


      
        	
                1.

              	
                Section “2. Term
      of Agreement”  strike the
      language “continue until December 31, 2009” and replace it with “continue
      until December 31, 2010”.

              


      

      


       
 

      
        	
                2.

              	
                Except
      as expressly amended herein, the Employment Agreement shall continue and
      be in full force in all respects.

              


      

      


      


       

      _________________________________                                            _________________________________

      


      ImageWare
Systems,
Inc.                                                                           Wayne
Wetherell