alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31986R3749 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31986R3749

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3749/86 of 9 December 1986 determining the operative event for calculating levies and refunds in the rice sector **

*
Official Journal L 348 , 10/12/1986 P. 0032 - 0032 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 22 P. 0094 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 22 P. 0094 *

*****

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3749/86

of 9 December 986

determining the operative event for calculating levies and refunds in the rice sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/85 of 11 June 1985 on the value of the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 5 (3) thereof,

Whereas, in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3294/86 (2), the conversion rate is to be determined using a monetary coefficient which is calculated and applied in a way similar to the way the monetary compensatory amounts are calculated;

Whereas, in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1676/85, if an agricultural conversion rate is altered, the alteration is to apply to the amounts in respect of which the operative event occurs after the alteration has taken effect; whereas, in accordance with Article 5 (1) (a) of that Regulation, 'operative event' means, as regards the amounts charged or granted in trade, the completion of customs import or export formalities;

Whereas, as a result, amounts of levies and refunds fixed in advance may vary in national currency; whereas the advance fixing of levies and refunds therefore constitutes an risk for operators; whereas, as a consequence, the operative event should be defined as the date of acceptance of the application for the advance fixing of levies or refunds for the purposes of applying the conversion rate for calculating those amounts in national currency;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The operative event for the conversion into national currency of the amounts of levies and refunds applicable in the rice sector shall be:

- in the case of advance fixing of those amounts, the day on which the application for advance fixing is lodged,

- in the case of advance fixing by tendering procedure, the closing date for the submission of tenders.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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 Brussels, 9 December 1986.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 164, 24. 6. 1985, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 304, 30. 10. 1986, p. 25.
§ 1128.425 Additional prior approval for awards that support both non-construction and construction activities. ( a ) *OMB guidance.* Guidance on an additional prior approval requirement for grants or cooperative agreements that support both construction and non-construction activities is contained in 2 CFR 200.308(g)(5).
( b ) *DoD implementation of the guidance.* DoD implements the guidance in 2 CFR 200.308(g)(5) through terms and conditions for awards that support both non-construction and construction activities.
( c ) *Award terms and conditions.* If a DoD Component establishes general terms and conditions for awards that support both non-construction and construction activities, the DoD Component may add the prior approval requirement for funding or budget transfers between construction and non-construction activities that is described in OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.308(g)(5). The wording that appendix D to this part provides for Section B of FMS Article IV includes a reserved paragraph B.3 in which the DoD Component may add appropriate wording to include that prior approval requirement.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00301-CR

IN RE JARVIS DYWANE TYSON

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jarvis Dywane Tyson’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed on September 24, 

2018, is denied.1

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed October 10, 2018

Do not publish 

[OT06]

 

1 Tyson’s motion “Following Mandamus Action Motion in Arrest of Judgment” is dismissed as moot.
#### § 1108.40 Agreements officer.

*Agreements officer* means a DoD official with the authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate technology investment agreements.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday, January 28, 2011.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-32783 Filed 12-23-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
# EUR-Lex - 31983D0532 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31983D0532

**83/532/EEC: Commission Decision of 21 October 1983 amending the Dutch version of Decision 83/384/EEC on the list of the establishments in Australia approved for the purposes of importing fresh meat into the Community **

*
Official Journal L 297 , 29/10/1983 P. 0045 - 0045 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 16 P. 0257 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 29 P. 0077 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 16 P. 0257 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 29 P. 0077 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 21 October 1983

amending the Dutch version of Decision 83/384/EEC on the list of the establishments in Australia approved for the purposes of importing fresh meat into the Community

(83/532/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from third countries (1), as last amended by Directive 83/91/EEC (2), and in particular Articles 4 (1) and 18 (1) (a) and (b) thereof,

Whereas the Decision of 29 July 1983 (3) lists the establishments in Australia approved for the purposes of importing fresh meat into the Community;

Whereas, as a result of an error, the Dutch version of the said Decision does not correspond to that which was submitted to the Standing Veterinary Committee for an opinion; whereas the said Decision should therefore be amended,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 2 (2) of the Dutch version of the Decision of 29 July 1983 on the list of establishments in Australia approved for the purposes of importing fresh meat into the Community, '30 april 1984' and '7 april 1983' shall be replaced by '7 april 1983' and '30 april 1984' respectively.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 October 1983.

For the Commission

Poul DALSAGER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 302, 31. 12. 1972, p. 28.

(2) OJ No L 59, 5. 3. 1983, p. 34.

(3) OJ No L 222, 13. 8. 1983, p. 36.
#### Fred Nives, Doing Business as Foreign Currency Service, Respondent, v. Lilli-Ann Corp., Appellant.

Order entered December 16, 1969, denying defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. In June, 1958, defendant corporation gave its cheek for $15,000 to 'Granville, a foreign exchange broker, for the purpose of securing French francs for use by its principal in business travel abroad. The named payee was Cartier, a French citizen, not theretofore known to defendant but found, on careful investigation, to be a reputable person well able to supply francs in discharge of his side of the transaction. Apparently the check was appropriated by one Gottlieb, a business associate of Granville, said by investigating detectives to be a scoundrel, and Gottlieb delivered it to plaintiff, so plaintiff claims, bearing a Cartier indorse*906ment, and in exchange for financial consideration. Cartier has made affidavit that the indorsement is a forgery, and both defendant’s and plaintiff’s banks apparently concur, for the cheek was charged back through the banks to plaintiff’s account when rejected for forgery upon presentation for payment. Almost six years after it had been dishonored, plaintiff sued upon the check upon the theory that it was a bearer instrument, Cartier being a fictitious person. Apparently the sole basis for this claim is to be found in the papers submitted by defendant by way of an extract from plaintiff’s deposition, saying that Gottlieb had made an unspecific remark to this effect at some unrecalled time prior to the transaction in suit. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment sets forth proofs as hereinabove summarized, from which it is to be inferred that plaintiff did not acquire the instrument innocent of knowledge of any defect in the chain of acquisition. Certainly, nothing is offered to counter the submitted evidence that the named payee existed when the cheek was drawn and still exists, and that the cheek never passed through his hands. All that appears in response to the motion is an affidavit by counsel, devoid of proofs, not addressed to the merits, and actually not denying or disproving anything. We note Special Term’s observation that “Plaintiff has taken the risk of not submitting affidavits setting forth material facts to controvert the motion” but we do not accept the conclusion that “he has safely assumed that risk” for, whatever may have been plaintiff’s reasons, he has permitted defendant, without a gesture in defense, to demonstrate that there is no issue of fact to be taken to trial. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.
H. Res. 890

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

June 27, 2006.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the 

Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related 

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and 

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the 

bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill 

and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall 

be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 

points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 

comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except: beginning with the colon on page 15, line 18, through page 16, 

line 4; page 24, lines 17 and 18; and section 607. Where 
2

•HRES 890 EH 

points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, points 

of order against language in another part of such paragraph 

may be made only against such other part and not against 

the entire paragraph. During consideration of the bill for 

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 

may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed 

in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 

that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 

reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 

that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 

in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of 

July. 

SEC. 3. House Resolution 878 is laid upon the table.

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 84 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 84

  Expressing support for designation of February 4, 2017, as National 
                         Cancer Prevention Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2017

Mrs. Dingell (for herself, Mrs. Comstock, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Bishop of 
 Georgia, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Ms. Brownley of California, 
  Mrs. Beatty, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Norton, Mrs. Murphy of Florida, Ms. 
Lofgren, Ms. Esty, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Wilson of Florida, and Mr. Kennedy) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                         on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing support for designation of February 4, 2017, as National 
                         Cancer Prevention Day.

Whereas National Cancer Prevention Day is a day to remind us that when looking 
        at cancer we need to look at prevention and reducing risks for human 
        health and the environment;
Whereas when we work to prevent cancer risks, it impacts human health, the 
        environment, and the economy;
Whereas cancer is one of the leading causes of death around the world and has 
        touched the lives of nearly everyone, either directly or indirectly;
Whereas the disease is the cause of nearly 1 out of every 4 deaths in the United 
        States;
Whereas, by the end of 2016, approximately 1,658,210 new cases are expected to 
        be diagnosed across the United States;
Whereas more than 1,600 cancer-related deaths per day are expected throughout 
        the year for a total of approximately 595,690; and
Whereas February 4, 2017, would be an appropriate date to designate as Cancer 
        Prevention Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of National Cancer Prevention 
        Day;
            (2) recognizes all efforts to raise the awareness for the 
        reduction of cancer risks; and
            (3) recognizes the devastating effect cancer has on 
        families and wishes to expand knowledge, encourage early 
        detection, and work with friends in the medical and scientific 
        fields to put an end to this deadly disease.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 2424.1017 Ultimate beneficiary.

Ultimate beneficiaries of HUD programs include, but are not limited to, subsidized tenants and subsidized mortgagors, such as those assisted under Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment contracts, by Section 236 Rental Assistance, or by Rent Supplement payments.
(165 App. Div. 366)

#### SALVIN v. SALVIN et al.

(No. 6602.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 31, 1914.)

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by Harry Salvin, as administrator of Sidney I. Salvin, deceased, against Bertha Salvin and the New York Life Insurance Company. From an order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the defendant Bertha Salvin appeals.

Reversed, and motion granted.

Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGHLIN, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS. JJ.

Otto Horwitz, of New York City, for appellant.

Percy L. Housel, of Riverhead, for respondent.

DOWLING, J.

Order appealed from, as resettled, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion for judgment for defendant granted, with $10 costs, on the opinion in Salvin v. Salvin and the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 151 N. Y. S. 60, decided herewith. All concur.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 404 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the need 

to create a small donor and public finance system for Congressional elections. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2017 

Mr. NOLAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the need to create a small donor and public finance 

system for Congressional elections. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. PROVIDING FOR SMALL DONOR AND PUBLIC 

3 FINANCING OF ELECTIONS. 

4 It is the sense of the House of Representatives that, 

5 in order to eliminate the undue influence of money in poli6 tics— 

7 (1) Congress should create a small donor and 

8 public finance system for Congressional elections, 

9 which will ensure that Congress is responsible to vot10 ers instead of well-financed special interests; and 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 404 IH 

1 (2) Members of Congress should devote their 

2 full time to regular order and governing instead of 

3 campaign fundraising. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
#### §§ 1402.114-1402.203 [Reserved]
SCWC

- 17

- 0000 373

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

LEON R. ROUSE , Petitioner /Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,

vs.
ANDREW R. WALDEN , Respondent /Defendant

- Appell ee .

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 1 7

- 000 0 373 ; C IVIL NO. 1 5

- 1

- 09 95 )
ORDER DISMISS ING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the above

referenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals at the time the application for a writ of certiorari was filed, see Hawaii Revised Statutes § 602

- 59
(2016); see also Hawai  i Rules of Appellate Procedure (“HRAP”)
Rule 36(b)(1) (2016),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner/Plaintiff

Appellant Leon R. Rouse ’s application for a writ of certiorari, filed on July 13, 2018, is dismissed without prejudice to re

filing the applicatio n pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(a) (2016) (“The application shall be filed within 30 days after the filing Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-17-0000373 19-JUL-2018 08:29 AM2

of the intermediate court of appeals’ judgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing the application is
extended in accordance with t his Rule.”).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, July 19 , 2018.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
#### WEISS, Appellant, v. LAVANBURG, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 12, 1914.)

Action by Peter Weiss against Frederick L. Lavanburg.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Order filed December 15 , 2011

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 1 1

- 00 918

- CV

____________ CITIBANK, N.A., Appellant

V.

DON M. ESTES , Appellee

On Appeal from County C ourt No. 3 Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV

- 0064944



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed Octobe r 1 7 , 2011 . To date, the filing fee of $175.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying co sts has been filed. See Tex. R. App

.
P

. 5 . Therefore, the c ourt issues the following order. Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the Clerk of

this c ourt on or before December 30 , 2011

. See Tex. R. App . P. 5. If appellant fails to
timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
#### §§ 1402.301-1402.314 [Reserved]
IV 

House Calendar No. 112 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 538 

[Report No. 109–277] 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 

bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for Science, the Departments 

of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2005 

Mr. GINGREY, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to 

accompany the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations 

for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for 

4 Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Com5 merce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending Sep-
2 

HRES 538 RH 

1 tember 30, 2006, and for other purposes. All points of 

2 order against the conference report and against its consid3 eration are waived. The conference report shall be consid4 ered as read. 

House Calendar No. 112 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 538 

[Report No. 109–277] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving points of order against the conference re2006, and for other purposes. cies for the fiscal year ending September 30, State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agen- appropriations for Science, the Departments of port to accompany the bill (H.R. 2862) making 

NOVEMBER 8, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed